Damn it. I meant Sleeping Beauty, not Cinderella. I was thinking Maleficent, I don't know why I wrote Cinderella.
On-topic. Frozen is growing on me more and more in hindsight. I think a lot of my initial dislike was because it was Thanksgiving and I was stuffed and tired after the meal. I'll be giving it a second chance on DVD.
I often confused Maleficent and the Queen from Snow White as well. Makes sense. They're both are characters from Disney that are the archetypical evil queen, Maleficent was herself inspired by the Queen, and while Maleficent's been pretty high profile since Sleeping Beauty, the Queen from Snow White hasn't really. She barely even appears in Kingdom Hearts. In fact, I'm pretty positive she's never referred to as anything except "Queen" in the movie.
... Holy ****, there NEEDS to be an Elsa vs. Maleficent fight in Kingdom Hearts.
I often confused Maleficent and the Queen from Snow White as well. Makes sense. They're both are characters from Disney that are the archetypical evil queen, Maleficent was herself inspired by the Queen, and while Maleficent's been pretty high profile since Sleeping Beauty, the Queen from Snow White hasn't really. She barely even appears in Kingdom Hearts. In fact, I'm pretty positive she's never referred to as anything except "Queen" in the movie.
Which is weird really i mean between the two Maleficent doesnt have nearly as much fleshing out as a character (hell she is supposed to be THE Fairy, but doesnt really look like one or have any real background about her and such), and yet she is kinda the 'Go to Villain' for some reason.
... Holy ****, there NEEDS to be an Elsa vs. Maleficent fight in Kingdom Hearts.
I have not followed the KH series in forever...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Which is weird really i mean between the two Maleficent doesnt have nearly as much fleshing out as a character (hell she is supposed to be THE Fairy, but doesnt really look like one or have any real background about her and such), and yet she is kinda the 'Go to Villain' for some reason.
In the old fairy tale, the villain is a fairy, but there's no indication in the Disney movie that Maleficent is anything but a Maleficent.
As for why she's the go-to villain... have you seen the film? She's a goddamn force of nature. Design, animation, voice acting, dialogue: Disney has never again approached that level of sheer villainous presence. She doesn't have a villain song, because she doesn't freaking need one. (And also because it wasn't part of the House of Mouse Magic Money Formula yet, but shhh...) She's Disney's Joker. Questions about background and motives are really superfluous. She is what she is and does what she does, and you can't imagine her being or doing anything else. She's... totemic.
That said, the upcoming Angelina Jolie movie should provide plenty of answers about her. That's the main reason I'm leery about it.
In the old fairy tale, the villain is a fairy, but there's no indication in the Disney movie that Maleficent is anything but a Maleficent.
I thought there was a part in the film where they mention that one of the fairy's was not invited, I may be misremembering tho but im pretty sure that was there somewhere, it is never again mentioned afterwards tho.
As for why she's the go-to villain... have you seen the film? She's a goddamn force of nature. Design, animation, voice acting, dialogue: Disney has never again approached that level of sheer villainous presence.
Well yes she is but she is all that (and i actually love that), its just that she seems like a villains version of a Mary Sue thats all which i always found odd considering Mary Sue's normally dont win against deeply defined characters.
She doesn't have a villain song, because she doesn't freaking need one. (And also because it wasn't part of the House of Mouse Magic Money Formula yet, but shhh...)
She's Disney's Joker. Questions about background and motives are really superfluous. She is what she is and does what she does, and you can't imagine her being or doing anything else. She's... totemic.
That said, the upcoming Angelina Jolie movie should provide plenty of answers about her. That's the main reason I'm leery about it.
The problem i have is that i see the trailer and two things pop out to me:
1. Jolie is outclassing the heroine in all departments, even looks....
2. I want her to win so much even tho i know she wont.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I just took my 5 yr old daughter to see this at a dollar theater (yep, I'm somewhat of a cheapskate so I waited...but I did pay the extra $2 for 3D so it was $3 for a Sat afternoon show).
I thought it was decent and my daughter of course loved it. I'm slightly confused at the overall storyline though - Elsa is the older daughter of the King and Queen who was "cursed" as we find out at the beginning of the film; I may have missed it but do we ever find out why Elsa was cursed in the first place? Why was she "cursed" with the ability to create ice and snow and not the younger sister Anna? I know the reason why Elsa was cursed isn't important in the grand scheme of the "messages" of love, fear and sacrifice, bu I kept trying to dig for it throughout the film and don't remember finding out the reason.
Another small but curious question is the existence of the trolls. Why are they there? Why are these trolls portraying as "good" trolls who give good advice and offer to heal Elsa/Anna when trolls are often portraying as "bad" in other kids movies and cartoons? I would have rather used some sort of tribe of human indigenous people living in the extreme north whom people somewhat feared but in actuality were friendly if you were friendly. I know its Disney and you need some cartoonish, kid-friendly characters to draw them in, but that's what the snowman was for. You could have also sent another "message" in there about accepting people for who they are, despite their "reputation" or appearance.
I know there was a mini discussion earlier in the thread about Disney banking on the Princess formula. I must say, having a 5 yr old daughter, I can see why - it's such a huge money-maker. My daughter has all the Disney princesses (from Snow White to Merida from Brave) in the small GI Joe figures to the Barbie-sized figures, and of course Disney will make young girls want to get both Elsa and Anna for their collection. It was a great marketing ploy by Disney to have two lead princesses to make more money.
Also, I know the last couple of posts mentioned the upcoming Disney film on Maleficent; I must say I hadn't heard or seen about it until I saw the trailer and I thought it looked good. I'm worried that we'll get another Snow White and the Huntsman treatment, but I'll cross my fingers. We should probably get another thread started for discussion on that one as I believe the full trailer is due to release soon.
According to what i have found out, earlier drafts had a sort of prophecy type storyline involving Elsa or some such, it was later changed to what you saw (which is funny since the beginning song with the ice cutters kinda give you the hint/story line of how THAT version of the movie would have gone).
As far as the movie tells it is never explained how or why Elsa has this power or why only her, it only shows she has them. Also as far as i can tell it is only AFTER the initial incident that they even start calling it a curse and only due to fear, which is true in the overall sense really since the power is only a curse due to fear.
As for the trolls, not all depictions of trolls are the 'bad/evil' kind, this kind are more reminicent of the earthen gnomes of nordic lore or even celtic folktales.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I saw this on a date last week. The storyline was confusing and I thought the music sucked. I've heard people say it's the best animated film since Toy Story but . . . have these people even seen Finding Nemo? I don't understand the first song about the ice cutters. There was only one ice cutter in the whole story . . . and I thought they were gonna play a prominent role somehow. Like be the way the kingdom makes its money, what it has for trade, whatever. But nope, just one dorky guy. Who lives with trolls. For some reason that is also never explained other than "I think I'll keep you," at the start of the film.
Olaf was an annoying character. Less lovable than Sid from Ice Age but otherwise seemed to be a carbon copy of that character. Why was Elsa born with the Ice powers? Why wasn't her sister? Why did the Trolls know about magic, why did the parents know about the Trolls and apparently no one else in the kingdom does, and why did Anna have to forget about magic? It seemed that only if her heart were struck would she turn to ice but then why did she have to forget because her head was?
Oh, and the fact that she was controlling her powers fine before they talked to the Trolls who instilled fear in her. "Don't be afraid or you'll kill everyone you love!" Well sure, when you put it like that, of course I'm going to be terrified.
Anyways, I give it something like a 5.5/10 because the animation was great. But the story was weak, the characters weren't anything to write home about since I mostly only liked the reindeer, and the music was poor.
I saw this on a date last week. The storyline was confusing and I thought the music sucked.
I don't understand the first song about the ice cutters. There was only one ice cutter in the whole story . . . and I thought they were gonna play a prominent role somehow. Like be the way the kingdom makes its money, what it has for trade, whatever. But nope, just one dorky guy.
Well, it establishes the setting, and also introduces us to Kristoff and Sven. The latter is important, as not only would their appearance later in the film come totally out of left field without it, but Kristoff is also necessary to get Anna back to the trolls (remember, Anna loses all of her memories of magic, Elsa's locked in her own ice castle, and both of their parents are dead. Without Kristoff, there's no way to plausibly get Anna back to the troll people.)
Who lives with trolls. For some reason that is also never explained other than "I think I'll keep you," at the start of the film.
In fairness, does that really need more explanation?
Olaf was an annoying character.
Awww... I loved Olaf...
Less lovable than Sid from Ice Age but otherwise seemed to be a carbon copy of that character.
I don't really see very many similarities aside from both being in an ice world and both being the source of slapstick humor.
The schtick of the characters is actually particularly different. Sid is not perceptive, clumsy, openly annoying, and creates all sorts of problems wherever he goes. Olaf, on the other hand, is actually very perceptive, and isn't particularly clumsy. Further, there's no instance in Frozen in which Olaf makes a bad situation much worse through his involvement, which is pretty much Sid's primary purpose.
The humor of Olaf stems from the fact that he's extremely innocent, which is also his most endearing quality. It's also reflective of the fact that he's a symbol of the innocence of the relationship of Anna and Elsa when they were girls.
Why was Elsa born with the Ice powers? Why wasn't her sister? Why did the Trolls know about magic, why did the parents know about the Trolls and apparently no one else in the kingdom does,
Do those really require explanation?
and why did Anna have to forget about magic? It seemed that only if her heart were struck would she turn to ice but then why did she have to forget because her head was?
Now this part did need to be clarified more. It's touched on only briefly, the Troll Grand Pabbie says that the mind is easily changed, but a frozen heart is much more difficult to change. I agree, that's something they needed to clarify.
Oh, and the fact that she was controlling her powers fine before they talked to the Trolls who instilled fear in her. "Don't be afraid or you'll kill everyone you love!" Well sure, when you put it like that, of course I'm going to be terrified.
Well, she was pretty traumatized from the whole event with Anna as well. And yes, that was one of the facets of the story. Both the trolls and the parents were well-meaning, but inadvertently made the situation worse.
In fact, good intentions that accidentally make the situation worse is a motif that recurs throughout the story.
and the music was poor.
Really? "Let it Go" is probably one of the greatest songs in Disney history.
and why did Anna have to forget about magic? It seemed that only if her heart were struck would she turn to ice but then why did she have to forget because her head was?
Now this part did need to be clarified more. It's touched on only briefly, the Troll Grand Pabbie says that the mind is easily changed, but a frozen heart is much more difficult to change. I agree, that's something they needed to clarify.
You may recall that I had serious problems with the unexplained magic in Brave. But I think Frozen is an example of how to do right what Brave did wrong: "A frozen mind is easily persuaded, but only true love can thaw a frozen heart" resonates with our intuitions. Love is like a fire in the heart, fire melts ice... it just makes sense. Not rational sense, but fairy-tale sense, which is the proper kind of sense for magical things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ok so I just saw this today. I have a few comments.
Firstly, I've had "Let it Go" on repeat for more than a day. It's amazing.
And the movie was funny. It's not Tangled, which had me in stitches, but Frozen had me laughing a bit. Olaf was funny.
There's only one problem I had with it, and it's been with me since the movie ended:
How did Prince Hans come up with such a half-assed plan? I mean, let me walk through this in my head here... He comes to Arendelle knowing he will never be king of the Southern Isles.
First question: Did he come with the intent of wooing Anna? If not, it was only a stroke of luck that Anna falls in his lap. I personally can't see that he would know she was such a romantic, as Arendelle is so "mysterious" as the Duke put it. But in the end, he states that he was going to have to cause some sort of accident for Elsa, but that changed when she ran off and Anna ran after her. This seems to imply he came to Arendelle with a plan. Maybe his plan was to woo Elsa, then kill her?
Next question: He and Anna had so much in common. Is he just that quick witted, or is that just his personality? He's obviously quick on his feet, since he's able to convince everyone that he's such a good guy. Also, if his plan didn't involve Anna at all, he wouldn't need to know her personality, therefore he would need to fool her on the fly.
Thirdly, it's been said that he saves Elsa several times when that was unneeded. I think he did so to stop the winter. So, that had to be part of his plan.
Lastly, and here's the part that gets me... Anna comes to him for True Loves Kiss... and instead of maintaining to illusion and just lying to her for a little bit longer... he monologues. Like every other villain ever. All he needed to do was lie for... maybe another hour. Then he would rule Arendelle.
I mean.. this whole plan can't have been too thought out. Everything seems to be coincidence and luck.
Am I overthinking this massively? Is there something I'm missing?
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
First question: Did he come with the intent of wooing Anna? If not, it was only a stroke of luck that Anna falls in his lap. I personally can't see that he would know she was such a romantic, as Arendelle is so "mysterious" as the Duke put it. But in the end, he states that he was going to have to cause some sort of accident for Elsa, but that changed when she ran off and Anna ran after her. This seems to imply he came to Arendelle with a plan. Maybe his plan was to woo Elsa, then kill her?
When he is "killing" Anna, he reveals that he intended on woo-ing Elsa. But after he saw that she was very difficult to approach and Anna was so incredibly gullible, he aimed his arrows for her.
As for the guy being quick on his feet: he knows he is has a capable mind and this reflects in his smugness in the "killing" scene.
All in all, I do think you're overthinking his whole plan. It still needs to be understandable for the kids and all.
How did Prince Hans come up with such a half-assed plan? I mean, let me walk through this in my head here... He comes to Arendelle knowing he will never be king of the Southern Isles.
First question: Did he come with the intent of wooing Anna? If not, it was only a stroke of luck that Anna falls in his lap. I personally can't see that he would know she was such a romantic, as Arendelle is so "mysterious" as the Duke put it. But in the end, he states that he was going to have to cause some sort of accident for Elsa, but that changed when she ran off and Anna ran after her. This seems to imply he came to Arendelle with a plan. Maybe his plan was to woo Elsa, then kill her?
Next question: He and Anna had so much in common. Is he just that quick witted, or is that just his personality? He's obviously quick on his feet, since he's able to convince everyone that he's such a good guy. Also, if his plan didn't involve Anna at all, he wouldn't need to know her personality, therefore he would need to fool her on the fly.
Thirdly, it's been said that he saves Elsa several times when that was unneeded. I think he did so to stop the winter. So, that had to be part of his plan.
Lastly, and here's the part that gets me... Anna comes to him for True Loves Kiss... and instead of maintaining to illusion and just lying to her for a little bit longer... he monologues. Like every other villain ever. All he needed to do was lie for... maybe another hour. Then he would rule Arendelle.
I mean.. this whole plan can't have been too thought out. Everything seems to be coincidence and luck.
I think the problem is you're assuming that he's one of those super-genius villains who thought of everything ahead of time, as opposed to a guy with selfish desires who adapted his plan as events unfolded around him.
First question: No, Anna was just the easiest target. Anna literally fell into his lap when he first got into Arendelle and fell in love with him immediately, then was willing to marry him that night. As he said, his original intent was to see if he could win Elsa's hand, but he shifted focus to Anna when he found Anna was the perfect target, while Elsa was behaving like, well, an ice queen to everyone.
As to not being able to see she was such a romantic, Anna is many things, but subtle is far from one of them. She was throwing herself at him.
Second question: Well what do they really have in common?
Keep in mind, we really only have Anna's word that they're perfectly synchronized. And, as we learn, the truth behind the song "Love is an Open Door" is that they're NOT a perfect match, and in fact this is really Hans' villain song, as he's deceiving her the entire time.
One thing they definitely do have in common, which precipitates Anna telling Hans openly how she feels about him, and that is that they are both the youngest in their family, and feel neglected by their older siblings. Neither of them are the heir, but instead are the spare. That's what makes Anna really feel like she and Hans are kindred spirits and fully let her guard down, which, as we learn, was a terrible idea.
Third question: Hans doesn't save Elsa from death multiple times. He saves her exactly once, when one of the Duke of Weselton's thugs attempts to shoot a crossbow at her. However, if you notice, Hans looks up before he does so, noticing the chandelier of ice Elsa created that ultimately crashes down on her.
Last question: Well, he wouldn't maintain the illusion any further, any further would mean actually kissing her. As for the monologuing, he wasn't just monologuing, he was putting out all heat sources in the area and making sure that Anna was locked in. After all, no one else was around and Anna's doomed without anyone to save her. Failure to foresee a living snowman that can pick locks with a carrot is hardly the worst mistake a villain can make.
Keep in mind, we really only have Anna's word that they're perfectly synchronized. And, as we learn, the truth behind the song "Love is an Open Door" is that they're NOT a perfect match, and in fact this is really Hans' villain song, as he's deceiving her the entire time.
If you listen closely, he's following her lead, mimicking the stuff she says.
Third question: Hans doesn't save Elsa from death multiple times. He saves her exactly once, when one of the Duke of Weselton's thugs attempts to shoot a crossbow at her. However, if you notice, Hans looks up before he does so, noticing the chandelier of ice Elsa created that ultimately crashes down on her.
I did scratch my head at that. It seemed like Hans could have let Elsa die without any damage to his image. In fact, that scene really convinced me Hans was on the level - it was a "who you are in the dark" moment. (I thought there was something fishy about his character, and after Sven's little tirade about true love I knew he was going to turn out not to be, but I figured it was going to be a more innocuous "they barely know each other" or "just because he's a good guy doesn't mean he's your soulmate" message.) The only thing I can think of is that he was concerned Anna would be distracted by grief and not marry him if Elsa died. But that could have been explained better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I saw Frozen a few weeks ago out of complete boredom and was pleasantly surprised by how good it was. I haven't enjoyed a Disney movie this much since Mulan(which is still #1 in my heart!) and since I generally disdain computer animated movies this had to be especially good. Sure there are plot holes that make some adults enjoy it less but I'm not one of them. Can't you just enjoy a kid's movie without applying adult logic and experience to it? I can and that's why Frozen was a hit for me. Whoever wrote the songs for this movie knows what they're doing and Disney should keep them around. Now when I fight with my brother I sing "We used to be best buddies and now we're not. I wish you would tell me why!" and he just gives up and leaves.
Damn it. I meant Sleeping Beauty, not Cinderella. I was thinking Maleficent, I don't know why I wrote Cinderella.
On-topic. Frozen is growing on me more and more in hindsight. I think a lot of my initial dislike was because it was Thanksgiving and I was stuffed and tired after the meal. I'll be giving it a second chance on DVD.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
... Holy ****, there NEEDS to be an Elsa vs. Maleficent fight in Kingdom Hearts.
I have not followed the KH series in forever...
As for why she's the go-to villain... have you seen the film? She's a goddamn force of nature. Design, animation, voice acting, dialogue: Disney has never again approached that level of sheer villainous presence. She doesn't have a villain song, because she doesn't freaking need one. (And also because it wasn't part of the House of Mouse Magic Money Formula yet, but shhh...) She's Disney's Joker. Questions about background and motives are really superfluous. She is what she is and does what she does, and you can't imagine her being or doing anything else. She's... totemic.
That said, the upcoming Angelina Jolie movie should provide plenty of answers about her. That's the main reason I'm leery about it.
Fire > ice.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well yes she is but she is all that (and i actually love that), its just that she seems like a villains version of a Mary Sue thats all which i always found odd considering Mary Sue's normally dont win against deeply defined characters.
Incidentally what do you think she would sing? Im partial to something along these lines
The problem i have is that i see the trailer and two things pop out to me:
1. Jolie is outclassing the heroine in all departments, even looks....
2. I want her to win so much even tho i know she wont.
I thought it was decent and my daughter of course loved it. I'm slightly confused at the overall storyline though - Elsa is the older daughter of the King and Queen who was "cursed" as we find out at the beginning of the film; I may have missed it but do we ever find out why Elsa was cursed in the first place? Why was she "cursed" with the ability to create ice and snow and not the younger sister Anna? I know the reason why Elsa was cursed isn't important in the grand scheme of the "messages" of love, fear and sacrifice, bu I kept trying to dig for it throughout the film and don't remember finding out the reason.
Another small but curious question is the existence of the trolls. Why are they there? Why are these trolls portraying as "good" trolls who give good advice and offer to heal Elsa/Anna when trolls are often portraying as "bad" in other kids movies and cartoons? I would have rather used some sort of tribe of human indigenous people living in the extreme north whom people somewhat feared but in actuality were friendly if you were friendly. I know its Disney and you need some cartoonish, kid-friendly characters to draw them in, but that's what the snowman was for. You could have also sent another "message" in there about accepting people for who they are, despite their "reputation" or appearance.
I know there was a mini discussion earlier in the thread about Disney banking on the Princess formula. I must say, having a 5 yr old daughter, I can see why - it's such a huge money-maker. My daughter has all the Disney princesses (from Snow White to Merida from Brave) in the small GI Joe figures to the Barbie-sized figures, and of course Disney will make young girls want to get both Elsa and Anna for their collection. It was a great marketing ploy by Disney to have two lead princesses to make more money.
Also, I know the last couple of posts mentioned the upcoming Disney film on Maleficent; I must say I hadn't heard or seen about it until I saw the trailer and I thought it looked good. I'm worried that we'll get another Snow White and the Huntsman treatment, but I'll cross my fingers. We should probably get another thread started for discussion on that one as I believe the full trailer is due to release soon.
As far as the movie tells it is never explained how or why Elsa has this power or why only her, it only shows she has them. Also as far as i can tell it is only AFTER the initial incident that they even start calling it a curse and only due to fear, which is true in the overall sense really since the power is only a curse due to fear.
As for the trolls, not all depictions of trolls are the 'bad/evil' kind, this kind are more reminicent of the earthen gnomes of nordic lore or even celtic folktales.
Olaf was an annoying character. Less lovable than Sid from Ice Age but otherwise seemed to be a carbon copy of that character. Why was Elsa born with the Ice powers? Why wasn't her sister? Why did the Trolls know about magic, why did the parents know about the Trolls and apparently no one else in the kingdom does, and why did Anna have to forget about magic? It seemed that only if her heart were struck would she turn to ice but then why did she have to forget because her head was?
Oh, and the fact that she was controlling her powers fine before they talked to the Trolls who instilled fear in her. "Don't be afraid or you'll kill everyone you love!" Well sure, when you put it like that, of course I'm going to be terrified.
Anyways, I give it something like a 5.5/10 because the animation was great. But the story was weak, the characters weren't anything to write home about since I mostly only liked the reindeer, and the music was poor.
Well, it establishes the setting, and also introduces us to Kristoff and Sven. The latter is important, as not only would their appearance later in the film come totally out of left field without it, but Kristoff is also necessary to get Anna back to the trolls (remember, Anna loses all of her memories of magic, Elsa's locked in her own ice castle, and both of their parents are dead. Without Kristoff, there's no way to plausibly get Anna back to the troll people.)
In fairness, does that really need more explanation?
Awww... I loved Olaf...
I don't really see very many similarities aside from both being in an ice world and both being the source of slapstick humor.
The schtick of the characters is actually particularly different. Sid is not perceptive, clumsy, openly annoying, and creates all sorts of problems wherever he goes. Olaf, on the other hand, is actually very perceptive, and isn't particularly clumsy. Further, there's no instance in Frozen in which Olaf makes a bad situation much worse through his involvement, which is pretty much Sid's primary purpose.
The humor of Olaf stems from the fact that he's extremely innocent, which is also his most endearing quality. It's also reflective of the fact that he's a symbol of the innocence of the relationship of Anna and Elsa when they were girls.
Do those really require explanation?
Now this part did need to be clarified more. It's touched on only briefly, the Troll Grand Pabbie says that the mind is easily changed, but a frozen heart is much more difficult to change. I agree, that's something they needed to clarify.
Well, she was pretty traumatized from the whole event with Anna as well. And yes, that was one of the facets of the story. Both the trolls and the parents were well-meaning, but inadvertently made the situation worse.
In fact, good intentions that accidentally make the situation worse is a motif that recurs throughout the story.
Really? "Let it Go" is probably one of the greatest songs in Disney history.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Firstly, I've had "Let it Go" on repeat for more than a day. It's amazing.
And the movie was funny. It's not Tangled, which had me in stitches, but Frozen had me laughing a bit. Olaf was funny.
There's only one problem I had with it, and it's been with me since the movie ended:
How did Prince Hans come up with such a half-assed plan? I mean, let me walk through this in my head here... He comes to Arendelle knowing he will never be king of the Southern Isles.
First question: Did he come with the intent of wooing Anna? If not, it was only a stroke of luck that Anna falls in his lap. I personally can't see that he would know she was such a romantic, as Arendelle is so "mysterious" as the Duke put it. But in the end, he states that he was going to have to cause some sort of accident for Elsa, but that changed when she ran off and Anna ran after her. This seems to imply he came to Arendelle with a plan. Maybe his plan was to woo Elsa, then kill her?
Next question: He and Anna had so much in common. Is he just that quick witted, or is that just his personality? He's obviously quick on his feet, since he's able to convince everyone that he's such a good guy. Also, if his plan didn't involve Anna at all, he wouldn't need to know her personality, therefore he would need to fool her on the fly.
Thirdly, it's been said that he saves Elsa several times when that was unneeded. I think he did so to stop the winter. So, that had to be part of his plan.
Lastly, and here's the part that gets me... Anna comes to him for True Loves Kiss... and instead of maintaining to illusion and just lying to her for a little bit longer... he monologues. Like every other villain ever. All he needed to do was lie for... maybe another hour. Then he would rule Arendelle.
I mean.. this whole plan can't have been too thought out. Everything seems to be coincidence and luck.
Am I overthinking this massively? Is there something I'm missing?
When he is "killing" Anna, he reveals that he intended on woo-ing Elsa. But after he saw that she was very difficult to approach and Anna was so incredibly gullible, he aimed his arrows for her.
As for the guy being quick on his feet: he knows he is has a capable mind and this reflects in his smugness in the "killing" scene.
All in all, I do think you're overthinking his whole plan. It still needs to be understandable for the kids and all.
I think the problem is you're assuming that he's one of those super-genius villains who thought of everything ahead of time, as opposed to a guy with selfish desires who adapted his plan as events unfolded around him.
First question: No, Anna was just the easiest target. Anna literally fell into his lap when he first got into Arendelle and fell in love with him immediately, then was willing to marry him that night. As he said, his original intent was to see if he could win Elsa's hand, but he shifted focus to Anna when he found Anna was the perfect target, while Elsa was behaving like, well, an ice queen to everyone.
As to not being able to see she was such a romantic, Anna is many things, but subtle is far from one of them. She was throwing herself at him.
Second question: Well what do they really have in common?
Keep in mind, we really only have Anna's word that they're perfectly synchronized. And, as we learn, the truth behind the song "Love is an Open Door" is that they're NOT a perfect match, and in fact this is really Hans' villain song, as he's deceiving her the entire time.
One thing they definitely do have in common, which precipitates Anna telling Hans openly how she feels about him, and that is that they are both the youngest in their family, and feel neglected by their older siblings. Neither of them are the heir, but instead are the spare. That's what makes Anna really feel like she and Hans are kindred spirits and fully let her guard down, which, as we learn, was a terrible idea.
Third question: Hans doesn't save Elsa from death multiple times. He saves her exactly once, when one of the Duke of Weselton's thugs attempts to shoot a crossbow at her. However, if you notice, Hans looks up before he does so, noticing the chandelier of ice Elsa created that ultimately crashes down on her.
Last question: Well, he wouldn't maintain the illusion any further, any further would mean actually kissing her. As for the monologuing, he wasn't just monologuing, he was putting out all heat sources in the area and making sure that Anna was locked in. After all, no one else was around and Anna's doomed without anyone to save her. Failure to foresee a living snowman that can pick locks with a carrot is hardly the worst mistake a villain can make.
I did scratch my head at that. It seemed like Hans could have let Elsa die without any damage to his image. In fact, that scene really convinced me Hans was on the level - it was a "who you are in the dark" moment. (I thought there was something fishy about his character, and after Sven's little tirade about true love I knew he was going to turn out not to be, but I figured it was going to be a more innocuous "they barely know each other" or "just because he's a good guy doesn't mean he's your soulmate" message.) The only thing I can think of is that he was concerned Anna would be distracted by grief and not marry him if Elsa died. But that could have been explained better.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.