I think this is self-explanatory.
To me,this will be the ultimate defense for anything Frozen related I've ever done.
I've seen people criticize the movie to no end and while I respect people's opinions,that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.And since this is an "anniversary article" (sorry if it sounded stupid),this will be a special and meaningful article to me,so it will be long.
Let's get some things out of the way first:
Firstly,I will defend Frozen against 10 of the most well-known reasons that many people criticize it,so this will take a long time.
Second,just like in my "What I want the sequel for Frozen to do" article,I'm going to rant A LOT in this article since I'm very sick of all these unfair hate that I'll barely be able to hold myself back.So I'm sorry if I sound like a pretentious jerk.
Third,like usual,this will all be opinion based.You're all free to have your own opinion and stick with them,but that doesn't mean that I won't respect those ideals as well as you.
Well I don't want this article to be a day long so let's just start:
1.Ruined the source content.
"Sure, probably everyone knows that Frozen was based on Hans Christian Andersen’s genius The Snow Queen, but do you really know how far it diverged from the plot? It’s a lot, like a really lot. Adaptation is fine, but with such an ingenious story on so many levels, it hurts to see it so watered-down to appease a mass audience of fools. The central factor here is it’s a fairy tale. Fairy tales, by nature, require the audience to suspend reality, so if you mix too much of the “real” in there it degrades the idea of it all. Hint, that’s exactly what Frozen does with The Snow Queen. Luckily for true film fans out there, the Soviets, of all people, made a faithful, animated version of it in 1957, which you can watch for free right here."
By the logic they’re presenting here,every Disney movie has no redeeming value.They’re all adaptations of fairy tales that are darker and more interesting than their animated counterparts.I fail to see the distinction between Frozen “botching” The Snow Queen and,for example,The Hunchback of Notre Dame “botching” Victor Hugo’s original novel.Or what about Princess and the Frog? Where the heck is a crazy voodoo man in the original Frog Princess story? If anything,Frozen should be considered a lesser offender than Hunchback or Princess and the Frog because at least they have that Russian adaptation that actually is faithful.By the way,this whole,“Other Disney movies have done this before,”is a really common hole in their arguments.The whole idea that,“an adaptation is bad because the original is better,”is paper thin anyways because a film is only truly a failure if it fails to stand on its own merits like in Green Lantern or directly goes against something the original stood for like in the 2007 Halloween Remake...I guess they think Frozen does both anyways,but the only problem here is that they don’t know how to accept the phrase,“based on (insert story here).”
2.Original altered to stock drivel.
"This continues our first point. Frozen in adapting, or better to say completely altering the original story, has simply utilized stock ideas from the Disney profit-princess concept to make another set of birthday party napkins for you toss in the trash, covered with cake that was so delicately designed with Elsa on the top of it. That’s right, keep eating, go ahead, EAT ALL OF IT. Really, it’s pathetic what they did. Princess, guy to fall in love with who’s really not a good guy, other guy you know she’ll actually fall in love with, can it get more obvious? There’s nothing wrong with sticking to a format, but an obvious format does not a good movie make, so stop right there. It’s the most typical story ever told, without a lick of creativity. If you make it obvious, you need to be very clever with the development. Some people think this was what was actually clever about it, but we’ll address that at the end."
First of all,they could’ve put this point into the first one and titled it,“Replaced source content with merchandizing and formulaic predictability,”or whatever suits their fancy.The way they structured their comment is padding,plain and simple.They even said it themselves,“This continues our first point.”Its real intent is to try and convey that they’ve got some sort meticulously woven argument,when really they have so little to say that they are forced to repeat their points.Anyways,the little anecdote about the Disney party napkins is,without droning on,patronizing.If I wrote about just how patronizing it was,then this article would be twice as long.If they think that Frozen is bad in that area,then just wait until they watch Cars 2.Moving on from that…following the Disney formula does not invalidate the movie.Is Beauty and the Beast invalidated? Is Little Mermaid invalidated? What about Aladdin,Mulan,Tangled and so forth.By the way,in what other Disney movie has there been a, “guy to fall in love with who’s really not a good guy.”? They say that following an obvious formula doesn’t make a good movie;that you need creativity.I’ll address the creativity issue where they did for the sake of responding where it’s appropriate.
3.Wooden Characters.
"Even for stock ideas of good/evil you need to have some attachments and dislike for characters. Classic can be good, but only if you retain these sensations with proper development, which Frozen does not. As soon as you see Kristoff, that rugged yo ho mountain man with his trusty sidekick elk you know immediately he’s going to be the main love interest. He’s just there for a moment and you say, “yep, there’s that guy.” The most obvious case of poor character focus is between Elsa and Anna, the two sisters. So Elsa has this power that’s potentially dangerous, fine. The movie then cuts to a song to explain their years growing together/apart, but because of how it’s pieced together, with no real explanation of certain things (we’ll get to this), and it’s done within a scant minute or so, the viewer is left unconnected to the core issues of the film. Their parents die with no real meaning, because the tragedy isn’t developed. Other characters are merely there for their stock roles and aren’t given enough space to evolve. Will there, oh will there be a cute, lovable, comedy-relief creature of some sort who’s so lovably stupid you just have to buy the stuffed toy after? YEP. Is it really explained WTF he’s doing there in the first place? NOPE. SHUT UP TOY GET IN MY ARMS NOW HERE IS ALL MY MONEY. Let’s get to that next."
First off,their assumption about Kristoff being predictable is a tad short-sighted.There’s more evidence that he would be Elsa’s love interest instead of Anna’s.Think about it.When Anna first tells Kristoff about her engagement to Hans,how does he react? He gives her the same response that Elsa did.The audience immediately makes that connection and sees similarities between the two of them.The movie also puts a lot of emphasis on his strange obsession with ice.To quote him,“Ice is my life!” Therefore,it’s fair to say that the ice loving man would love the ice making queen.In order to teach the moral of being careful about choosing who to love,but also keep it open on who would end up with who,Disney has to keep themselves from presenting Kristoff as the definite love interest and they did by giving more than enough evidence suggesting that he would be Elsa’s lover.As for the focus on Anna and Elsa in Do You Want to Build a Snowman,they’re incorrect again.Elsa and Anna's parents’ death is not a tragedy because the characters themselves are dead.It’s tragic because Elsa and Anna are left in a situation that they don’t know how to move forward from;they have no guidance.The viewer now knows that they have to make their own decisions and possibly aren’t ready to do so.And before you say my reasoning means that Anna and Elsa are idiots who need to be on a leash held by their parents or else they’ll freeze the kingdom,that’s not true at all.Young adults screw stuff up and have to go to their parents for help in order to understand how hard life can be and learn the weight of the decisions they make,but Elsa and Anna can’t do that anymore.THAT’S where the tragedy comes from.This isn’t just me over analyzing the film either.All of what I’ve said about the characters is explicitly told to the audience.Finally,I actually do have an explanation for why Olaf exists that isn’t merchandizing.He’s supposed to represent the bond that Anna and Elsa had when they were children.I mean,he literally is a happy memory personified.That’s a new,more clever way to choose a comic relief character than,for example,the gargoyles from The Hunchback of Notre Dame who are just sort of…there (though granted if they didn't make it into the movie than the movie would have been even more dark and probably would never have been released). And,in all honesty Olaf isn’t stupid,just really silly and childish.Stupid means that he makes no sense and doesn’t abide by logic that we do.And,again,Disney has merchandized comic relief before,so Frozen is no worse than any other Disney film.They admit that there’s too much comic relief in their next point anyways,so my point is proved.So,to recap,they think that Frozen is the Devil for having a comic relief character,but then go on to say that every Disney film does it.What makes Frozen worse for doing it then?Nothing,because their arguments are nonsensical.
4.Sidekick bullsh*t.
"Really, honestly, does there have to be a God damn sidekick character in every frikken Disney film? Why? Why do you keep doing this? So Elsa and Anna made a snowman or two in their youth, thus the main song this stupid movie is known for, and later he’s wandering around because he’s magical now and whatever. So? Does he really have to be there? Sure, they make him have a little importance later in the plot, but the fact that you could do that with someone else and remove him from the rest of the film with no difference other than a removal of trite comedy says a lot. We don’t need to have something to laugh at all the time, just once, please, can’t you just tell a story for a story instead of littering it with stupid comedy? Sometimes serious is the better option."
Again,Olaf is meant to represent the bond that Anna and Elsa had as children.I know going in that they don’t care about that,but it is the reason that he’s there.If they ignore that,then they’re just making stuff up.And,again,Disney has done this before.Why did it have to be Timon and Pumba who saved Simba when he was dying in the desert?Regardless,I’m actually going to call them out and say that they’re overreacting in every sense of the word on this one.Disney mostly knows how to balance comic relief in with the seriousness of the plot.Disney comic relief isn’t out of place because they know how to keep a serious moment serious.Even with Olaf,the creators knew that sometimes he had to shut up and let a scene play out.For example,when Anna’s heart is first frozen by Elsa in the ice castle,do you know how easy it would be for Disney to have put in a stupid joke to distract from the fact that the protagonist just got attacked?How about when Anna is frozen solid and Olaf is quiet like everybody else because they can’t believe that Anna actually froze to death (though I would have liked the scene to have some background musical accompaniment because it would have made the scene a lot more effective.)? Putting a joke there too would’ve been easy.An animated movie that handles comic relief poorly,like Epic,doesn’t know how to keep the comic relief where it belongs.If Frozen was as bad as Epic, then Olaf would’ve popped up out of nowhere and interrupted with a joke when Hans and Anna were about to kiss,ruining any kind of drama or mood The creators were going for,but they didn’t.Why?Maybe it’s because Disney actually knew what they were doing. Also,they do realize that they’re basically saying that an entire archetype of character has no artistic merit,don’t they? They outright said that, “We don’t need to have something to laugh at all the time…” So,by their logic,comic relief has no place in Disney films.That’s a little narrow minded.I agree that children and everybody else for that matter,shouldn’t always be subjected to comedy,but they also shouldn’t be subjected to strictly serious and depressing stuff.There should be a balance between the two that I think Frozen found.They are way,way,WAY overstating how much comedic presence Olaf had.
5.Poor plot development.
"The Snow Queen was an awesome story, you can read the entire thing in the link posted earlier. Frozen‘s big problem is lots of critical plot development is scrunched into a two-minute song, merely assumed, or comes and goes so it quickly it loses effect. When the parents die, you really don’t care. They barely say more than two sentences in the movie anyway, so when their ship goes down it means nothing because the sisters forget about it so easily. Actually, they don’t, but it’s all condensed into a song and you lose that sense of reality. Elsa’s power is another example. So she has this great power to control ice that’s potentially dangerous. Where did it come from? Why is it just assumed? What is it’s purpose in the greater schema of this fantasy world? Why are we given no details as to what it actually means? Who in the living Hell would actually fall in love with a prince they literally just met and who 100% of the audience already knows is going to not be the one chosen at the end? If it’s that obvious to a five-year old (true story), perhaps the characters themselves are complete idiots, and that explains the rest of it. Don’t worry, we’ll be getting to that bit if you think we don’t get it, keep reading."
I already told you why the parents’ death matters,so I’ll spare you the repetition.This particular point they make about the “vague” plot development combines with one they make later that is actually very rhetorically clever,but it cements their pretentious sense of entitlement worse than anything they’ve said so far.I’ll get to talking about it later though.It really shoots their already non-existent credibility in the foot.Anyways,they do present questions that I will answer for you. “Where did it (Elsa’s power) come from?” They say that she was born with it.If you can’t accept that,then I await their in-depth essays on why X-Men and Incredibles are abominations.Again,Disney has done this before in the aforementioned The Incredibles. “Why is it (Elsa’s power) just assumed?” (assumed to be dangerous I presume). Because she already froze her sister’s head by accident.Plus,the idea that someone can control ice being dangerous is common sense;especially because Elsa is only a child and can’t truly keep it under control. “What is its purpose in the greater schema of this fantasy world?” While I actually have no answer for this,I will say that if the story truly addressed this question,it would take away the relatively self-contained story that Frozen is trying to tell and then they’d just be complaining that the story is overcomplicated. “Why are we given no details as to what it (Elsa’s Power?) actually means?” I’m not really sure what you mean by that.What could Elsa’s power really mean? “Who in the living Hell would actually fall in love with a prince they literally just met and who 100% of the audience already knows is going to not be the one chosen at the end?” Well,Anna has been kept in the castle for most of her life.She doesn’t really understand how the world works.She’s not an idiot;she just doesn’t have a realistic understanding of love.Keep in mind that the audience by that point in the movie doesn’t know that Hans is the villain.I’m really skeptical of their “true story” that a five year old knew that Hans was evil at first glance.Unless they’re implying that they’re a five years old,which would not surprise me at this point.
6.Random wait "WTF" sh*t.
"Frozen has a ton of things merely assumed. It goes along with our last point, but here’s a perfect example of it, the rock trolls. Okay, cool looking, trolls, rocks, kind of like Rock Lords but not awesome, we’ll go with that. Wait, why are they here? Who are they exactly? Why do the parents go to them for help in the opening scenes? What function do they have in this world? They’re just tossed right in there like the balls they resemble and you’re expected to simply consume their presence. Sorry but no. Or how about this. So Elsa decides to leave her kingdom because she fears her powers, okay, sure. Well, wait no. First off, if love is the key to “curing” her, wouldn’t she have figured that out earlier? “NO,” you say in CAPS. But children have pure love, so umm, wouldn’t she have, you know, FIGURED IT THE HELL OUT EARLIER? And why did they wipe Anna’s memories of what happened? What’s the point of that? Why not just say to her, “listen, dear, your sister has ice powers that could potentially kill you, best to stay away when you can.” Seems pretty legit to me, and we could have avoided another stupid song. So she leaves all that, okay. And she goes into the mountains and makes an ice palace! Wait, and then what? Is she going to make ice food? Is she going to have ice parties with ice sculptures and do nothing the rest of her life? Really, what in the Hell is she going to do now? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BECAUSE SHE’S IN THE GOD DAMN MOUNTAINS AND THERE’S SNOW EVERYWHERE. Fairy tales suspend the majority of reality! You can’t keep mixing it or the viewer questions the plot!"
Where do I begin with this one? First of all,I should their points on the trolls.Does their existence really warrant explanation? They’re obviously some sort of mythological creatures,so that amounts to nothing more than the simple fact that the world has mythological creatures in it.I fail to see why that’s so hard to swallow.As for why the parents go to them for help,that’s really,REALLY obvious.They go to them for help because Anna’s father thinks they can unfreeze her head.Were they even paying the slightest amount of attention to the film they’re attempting (and failing) to criticize? You can’t just say (In literally your exact words), “Sorry but no,” and not accept something that doesn’t really need an explanation or something that the movie outright tells you unless you have absolutely no suspension of disbelief or ability to pay attention.Now about Elsa’s powers.When Elsa was a child,after her parents shut her inside her room,she did have love for her parents,but her fear of herself was stronger than her love for her parents.THAT’S why she didn’t “figure it out earlier.” She kinda misses the whole, “Fear will be your enemy,” thing that the troll tells her.Only at the end of the movie when she realizes that, “love thaws a frozen heart,” to use the movie’s words, does she accept that love for Anna as the dominant feeling that she feels.As for Anna’s memory being erased…yeah I honestly have no idea why they did that and it’s a fairly legitimate criticism that I agree with.I will say that I enjoy the movie so I think that the end justifies the means,but they’re fine to think it doesn’t.Heaven knows I’m not going to end up changing their mind.Moving on to Elsa leaving Arendelle.From what I understand,their problem with this is that Elsa built a palace to live in without any way to survive.To answer the food issue,she could send Marshmallow to hunt for her or something to find food,but that’s only a short sighted idea since as they said oh so eloquently, “SHE’S IN THE MOUNTAINS AND THERE’S SNOW EVERYWHERE.” So to answer what she’s going to do with the rest of her life:nothing…in a sense.Her only intent is to keep herself away from others to keep from accidentally hurting them.She didn’t build the ice castle to live in,but to keep herself inside as a prison.I have a bit of a theory that explains why she went there,and it doesn’t require as much over-analyzing as you’d think.I think Elsa intended to die out there.At that point in her life,was there really anything else she would’ve wanted to do but sing about how she’s free and then keep herself from seeing/hurting anyone,even if that meant death?
7.Those trolls.
"Seriously, can we talk about the trolls again? Thank you. Why are they in this movie? They’re just there! They perform magic, great, there’s a leader, great, whatever, but why are they there? Are there other creatures like them in the world? What is their role among the greater fauna and flora? Do they sit there rolled up in ball-form until someone comes to ask them questions about magic or to make it seem like Frozen has plot? Toss us something so we don’t make another point in our list here about it."
First of all,they’re just elongating their argument again by saying something they could’ve easily said in their past point.Really,what was their point to separating this from their comments on the trolls in the last point? There is none,so screw them and their overlong arguments.Now,about these trolls.I’d like to say that we don’t spend a bunch of time learning about the ins and outs of Troll culture because that’s not the focus of the movie.If they spent time teaching us about them,you’d just be complaining that they spent too much time “enlightening” us on the trolls’ culture and how that has nothing to do with the plot,meaning that Frozen is the devil for not focusing on the story.Regardless,I’ll answer some of your questions about them.I think the reason they’re in the movie is to act as a counter to Elsa’s power.Hear me out.We have a princess with magic powers,so it kind of makes sense that there’s another magical entity in the world who can understand it.As for their other questions,I don’t have answers for them,but…aside from their stupidly cynical mind,who the hell cares? You asked about the troll’s role in the *ahem*, “greater fauna and flora.” Who cares about the culture of a civilization of rocks and their role among the flora when they have a character that can control ice? That may sound odd,but honestly they’ve run out of things to complain about,so they decided to ask why they didn’t include an intricate backstory on the race of some of the most minor characters in the story.It may sound odd considering that I’ve at least given you responses that relate to the story or something,but in this case I think they’ve become way too nitpicky.Honestly, WHO CARES?
8.Goddamn songs.
"This has to be, seriously, the Disney film from their entire history with the most freaking songs ever. A song is pulled out nearly every scene for no reason, trying to condense plot into short spaces, just for the Hell of it, to prove a “point,” whatever. Why do we have to have all of these stupid songs? Disney has proven in the past a few songs,or even no songs, can still make a successful film. Why do they always feel the need to waste our time with these stupid songs? And nothing’s worse than a song that tries to explain 12 years in 2 minutes. Really, do you think we feel the characters and their conflicts are developed after that? Really? Why do you think we ranted about that above?"
First of all,while Frozen has more songs than the rest of the Disney films,they at least move the plot forward (most of them at least). Let’s count the songs in Frozen.I’m not counting the opening chanting Vuelie because there are no lyrics and no characters are singing there.There’s Frozen Heart,Do You Want to Build a Snowman,For the First Time in Forever,Love is an Open Door,Let it Go,Reindeer(s) are better than People,In Summer,For the First Time in Forever(Reprise) and Fixer Upper.That’s 9 songs.Now look at The Hunchback of Notre Dame.There's The Bells of Notre Dame,Out There,Topsy Turvy,God Help the Outcasts,Heaven's Light,Hellfire,A Guy Like You,The Court of Miracles and The Bells of Notre Dame (Reprise). Also 9 songs.See the problem here? Frozen doesn’t even have the most songs out of the Disney films.Even basic mathematics disagrees with them.The only reason it seems like there are so many songs is because of the bad pacing which crams 5 of them in the 1st act.But,in the 2nd and 3rd acts,there are a whopping 2 songs.So there is not a song for nearly every scene for no reason like they say there is.The rest of this point is not so much saying that songs in Frozen is a bad idea,but saying that songs in Disney movies at all have no reason.To quote them, “A song is pulled out nearly every scene for no reason, trying to condense plot into short spaces, just for the Hell of it, to prove a “point,” whatever.” Besides the infantile attempt they made to hyperbolize how many songs there actually are,isn’t that what Disney songs do? They’re meant to tell us the thoughts of a character and progress the story in musical form.I mean for Pete’s sake,Hakuna Matata while I'm not fond of that song,shows the transition from child Simba to adult Simba in a matter of seconds.Again,Disney has done what they’re complaining about before and worse. And about their question on why Disney chooses to use songs,maybe,just maybe,Disney is trying to tell as story in a unique,clever way that’s enjoyable to listen to and progresses the story.Did you ever think of that? Don’t answer,that was rhetorical.Of course they haven’t.And by the way,they said and I quote, “Really? Why do you think we ranted about that above?” I’m sorry,but WE didn’t rant about it.THEY ranted about it.It’s pretty pretentious to just assume that everybody’s immediately on the same page with them and everybody's automatically going to share their thoughts as if they’re some kind of teachers.Don’t automatically assume that I'm on the same page as them.Why else would they be writing your comments if they didn’t have to convince people of their point of view?
9.Love is WAY too easy.
"Love, the driving force behind every plot and tragedy in history. The driving force behind rebirth, it’s like, yeah you get it. But really, let’s be objective here. Anna falls in love with everything apparently. As said above, you know from the start that the major female character, that being Anna, is going to go for the stupid mountain man. They don’t even have to introduce him properly, just showing him on the screen and his elk that acts like a dog is enough. Why? Because that kind of thing has been done to Hell by Disney. But, see, they need to “develop” that. How? Well, of course, she instantly falls in love with this other guy, this prince. Sigh. Like as soon as she sees him practically. First glance, sure, heard that one, but they barely talk to each other and then she wants to get married. So they simply toss out the “guy you’ll eventually hate” without much reason for why anyone would want to like him at first. And, sigh, during the course of the “adventure” Anna will instead fall for the mountain man idiot, because that’s what she’s supposed to do."
I agree Anna falls in love too easily.The difference between them and I is that I know that THAT’S THE POINT.Without discussing the other characters,in order to teach a moral within a story’s context,somebody has to have the need to learn it.In Frozen’s case,Anna needs to be careful about who she decides to love,so how do they accomplish the expression of that moral?They have to show Anna falling in love too quickly.How do they do that?By making her fall in love with Hans.That’s not a problem like they say it is.That’s just how they tell a story that has a moral.Now putting Hans in the context of the story,they did make Hans a good character before they decided to make him evil.I mean,he seemed to love Anna as much as she loved him,he was willing to take responsibility for Arendelle after Anna just kind of dumped it on him,he offered the castle as shelter when people were freezing to death,and even risking his own life to take an expedition party to find and save Anna.They even do show the two of them talking and dancing during the coronation party,but they don’t really hear the majority of what they’re saying.Oh,I forgot,they need everything spelled out for their in order for it to be credible.I already disproved their statement about Kristoff being predictable,so you can go back and read that because you’ve probably forgotten it already.
10.NOT subversive.
"And that’s the big thing. Frozen has been hailed as “subversive” by many because it supposedly plays with the princess trope and “does something different with it,” or because it takes the typical concepts and “lays them bare” to make criticism out of them. Really? Well, in watching it we freaking expect everything that actually happens. Hmm. First question is then that if it’s soooo subversive then why do our female characters act exactly as we expect them to? Why do the men appear exactly as they always have? Why do all of the points above hint at everything in this movie being completely obvious or banal? Everything about Frozen is,in fact, expected, and nothing subversive is ever expected. Now, the second question is then does that make it subversive? Because that’s what’s being argued elsewhere. In displaying “how not to make a princess movie,” has “subversive” been accomplished, or is it simply someone analyzing it and laying that analysis on top of what is, in actuality, a princess movie?
If this were a subversive, self-aware film, then Disney would not be trying to make the entire film in the same way they always have. Even if we take the “love at first sight” theme at face value as hidden criticism, the rest of the film is still blatantly obvious. You know exactly who the true love will be, you know love will have a central role, you know the princesses will be pretty, wear nice clothing, you know there will be comedy relief, you know there will be humorous animals with above-normal intelligence, you know there will be songs, etc. Because, one, it’s for children in essence, and two, it’s the same freaking thing they’ve always done. Making Anna fall in love at first sight has been done in like almost every freaking Disney movie with a freaking princess in it. And, might I add, Elsa is not set up to be a villain as someone suggested, she’s set up in the outcast role, duh, and that’s been done a million times too, why do you think Rudy was such an easy sell? Where in the Hell did anyone get the idea that any of that was subversive? Go buy the toys, go buy the plates, go buy the cakes, then have a princess party until you’re 40 if you think it’s something more than it is. If subversion were the actual goal, then it wouldn’t be a product and it wouldn’t have fooled a quadrillion people it was something good like To the Extreme. Just because something sells, does not mean it’s something good. True subversion is never appreciated for what it is until current opinions are no longer the norm, that’s how it’s always been."
Now to counter their whiny-ass (sorry about that) argument about Frozen not being subversive.First of all,like so many other points they have,Disney has done this before.Remember Enchanted?That movie draws so much attention to how subversive it thinks it is because it has a princess save a prince when previous Disney movies have established that the princesses have the capability to think for themselves.If you think Frozen has an ego about its subversion,just watch that movie.On a side note,before you complain that Disney doing something before doesn’t excuse Frozen from doing it,then just ignore me saying that because it’s really a small point in my argument,alright? There’s more stupidity to be found in them than that.Or if you plan on complaining to me saying, “You saying that Disney used these tropes before only proves my point that Frozen is cliché and predictable.” Wrong again.The point in bringing up their repeated mistake is to ask themselves including you one question.What makes Frozen worse than other movies that use these tropes;and used them first? I’m not talking about everybody saying that it’s subversive.I’m talking about what actually makes it worse as a movie,not as a cultural phenomenon.If everybody says that Frozen’s doing something new and it isn’t,that’s one thing,but it has no direct effect on the film.You can hate somebody’s reaction to something,but at least try and separate that unfavorable reaction from the actual quality of the movie.I haven’t even said anything about their point of Frozen not being subversive yet,but that ends now.First of all,they misinterpret what people mean when they say that Frozen is subversive.People don’t think that it inverts every trope that Disney has ever used.When people say that Frozen,(to use their words) “plays with the princess trope and “does something different with it,” that’s not necessarily untrue.They did change it,but only one thing that people ended up caring about.The only subversive action that receives any attention is inverting the love at first sight idea,nothing else.Nobody says that Frozen was a subversive movie from start to finish,just in that area.The reason for this is that Disney was trying to fix something that they’ve been criticized for:love at first sight being the answer to everything.Even in good Disney films like The Princess and the Frog,the couple usually gets married by the end of the film.The creators fix this with Hans and even with Kristoff.Notice that nobody gets married by the end of it;Kristoff and Anna are just in a relationship when it’s over.They’ve hyperbolized the meaning of subversion to mean that everybody thinks that Disney took everything,whether it worked in previous movies or not,and flipped it over.Somebody saying that a Disney movie is subversive does not mean that and if you think it does then you are way too critical.Even if Frozen actually was 100% subversive and really did break every single conventional Disney cliche,they and probably even you would STILL be criticizing it as predictable because it’s only doing unexpected things,and thus your ability to predict the events trumps the unexpected nature of the hypothetical film.Take your pick,either you get a movie that’s not subversive enough to justify being unpredictable,or one does everything different to the point of constantly expecting the unexpected to the point of predictability.If Frozen landed somewhere in the grey area between those two choices,then you'd just have the same complaint you have in your comments that Frozen isn’t COMPLETELY subversive.They seem to be forgetting,also,that Frozen has predictability because it follows the Disney formula.I know that they said earlier that following a formula doesn’t mean that a movie is good,but hear me out.Movies like Mulan,Aladdin,Beauty and the Beast and Tangled work because they don’t use the Disney Formula as a step by step instruction book.They use it as a template to build their characters and story.Same thing holds true with Frozen.The problem that Frozen haters have with the characters isn't that the characters actually do anything specifically that pisses you off.For some reason,the characters mere existence is a problem for them.If you just say, “Oh this movie has a character archetype in it? Well,then this movie sucks,” that’s not an argument.Why not actually talk about what the character does or what a character actually means? For example,Batman and Iron Man are literally the exact same character.They’re both rich people who decided to use their money to become high-tech superheroes and fight crime.However,if you actually look at their characters,you’d see they’re different.Batman represents more brooding tragedy and the possibility to overcome it while Iron Man is more about confidence and using quick wit or knowledge to defeat an adversary.Just because character’s follow an archetype doesn’t mean that they are inherently bad characters.Same goes for Frozen.I know that you say, “It’s the same freaking thing they’ve always done,” but that is not inherently bad.I know they say it’s bad because Frozen’s supposedly receiving credit for something that it’s not really doing,but that point loses weight because of just how much they’ve hyperbolized their statement on how many people actually think Frozen’s 100% subversive.And that has no bearing on the quality of the film anyway.Just as they say that a film doesn’t become automatically good by following a formula,a film also doesn’t automatically become bad because it follows a formula either.By the way,when the heck has there ever been a character that the protagonist fell in love with only to realize that they’re not their true love?That literally HAS NEVER HAPPENED (or at least not in anything Disney made). Moving on ever further into the abyss of their argument,they said,“why do you think Rudy was such an easy sell?” What the heck is Rudy? They also said,“If subversion were the actual goal,then it wouldn’t be a product and it wouldn’t have fooled a quadrillion people it was something good like To the Extreme.” What the hell does that mean? Whether or not Frozen was meant to be subversive was the goal is irrelevant.Frozen has to be a product because,when you get down to it,film as an art form is a product.It’s subversion,or the lack thereof,has no bearing on Frozen “fooling a quadrillion people” since that is nowhere near the only reason that the fans of the film claim that they like it.I’m sure that you’ve all heard people praise the songs,characters,or animation for various reasons without even talking about how they’re subversive.In conclusion,people don’t really care about Frozen’s subversiveness,therefore negating their entire argument that following the Disney Formula is work of the devil.And now for the final nail in their argument’s coffin.They’ve written the haters arguments in a way so that nobody can refute it effectively.Not because it’s well written,but because the credentials that they automatically give to their opponents.You said, “There’s just nothing to be had here,get over it,stop reading into the stupid thing and finding meaning to justify why you wasted time and money.” They imply that people read into Frozen too much to find justification for why Frozen is as good as it is.Some people may do that,but some people may use legitimate things from the film to counter them,what then? Well,then the haters can just label them as childish for looking into the film too much.I mean,anyone who got more out of Frozen than you did OBVIOUSLY is reading too much into it,right? That was sarcasm by the way because I know for a fact that they won’t acknowledge that it was unless I tell them upfront.The fault isn’t that they say that some people make more of Frozen than there really is because some people do.The fault is that whether or not someone is childish is decided by ONLY them.They say that the plot moves by too quickly and doesn’t show enough,but if anybody tries to understand it and explain it to you,you can just say that they’re childish for making more of the movie than there really is.This is a clever;but obvious way for them to not put any effort to even pay a basic amount of attention to the film so they pick up ABSOLUTELY NOTHING while getting to label anybody who even attempts to understand it as a 40 year old man-child jumping up and down on their bed not wanting to grow up.We need to grow up? No,these kind of people need to grow up and realize that maybe they’re not the entitled,omnipotent God they think they are.
Before you comment back at me the, “it’s my opinion,” argument,then read this too.
First of all,I don’t care about that,what are you going to do? Their opinion is ill founded,makes no sense,and makes me question if they even watched the movie.
Second of all,it’s not that they’re expressing their opinion that’s the problem.Yeah,every problem that I said about their statements is something that you don’t have to,and inevitably won’t,listen to.It’s the way you choose to express that point of view.There’s a bunch of fans that want to hear nothing but praise for Frozen,I’ll give the haters that much (because in the past I use to be one of those kind of people).
(By the way,this next part you might find offensive so I'm very sorry if I sound rude.)
But,for real fans like me,I want people to ask me why I like the film so I can give them an argument that hopefully challenges their opinion so they can either see things my way or come up with a stronger argument for their point of view and further their understanding as to why they enjoy what they enjoy or hate what they hate.This is obviously something that YOU never thought of because YOU don’t ask of your readers to challenge their views or even to think about the movie in general.You ask of your readers to sit down and listen to you say they’re bad people for liking something.You ask of us to listen you rant about the same freaking thing again and again.You ask of us to look at your pretentious ass (sorry about that) like you have all the answers and bow down to your “superior” point of view.You ask of us to read your long sentences that desperately try to convince us that you’re smarter than you really are.You ask of us to constantly hear you say “we” when you’re referring to a rant that YOU made as if there’s ANY connection between the fans of the movie and your patronizing,entitled,and spiteful persona.Everybody should just go along with your stupid ideas because you think them.
Haters like these are just a bunch of whiny 1st year philosophy students who think they've come across a major discovery about the masses and how consumerism works,but I think Michael Bay understands how consumerism is killing society more than they do.They clearly are criticizing the fans’ ability to filter what they perceive as good,but to comment with such anti-passion for something is proof that they’re not interested in being wary of the art you choose to accept as “worthy”. Instead they’re trying to express how little the film gave them by writing whiny,troll comments about it.Do you not see the lack of sense in that? If it really gave them so little that the best it can give you is a nap,then how the hell are you able to force me to scroll down for something more worth my time.The problem is not that they didn’t enjoy the movie;it’s that they didn’t want to enjoy the movie,so you disassembled it and asked how you could make every last scene seem like an atrocity upon the world.Let me show you actual indifference:I saw Transformers 4 a while ago.Don’t see it because it’s boring,does nothing new,and I barely remember anything from it.See the difference between that and their argument against something not deserving of time?If something REALLY can only offer you a nap,you shouldn’t feel the need to foster such hatred and vent it on Youtube.I mean AT LEAST take that crap to the Frozen Tumblr boards or something so I can enjoy this song without having to find idiots like them and being obligated to dedicate a couple hours to proving that you’re an incorrect,pretentious asshole (sorru for the crude language). Since you’re also going to comment about how I’m being over-analytical of their and your comment,yet I’m criticizing you for doing so because it shows how little your indifference towards the film is,read this too:
I’m not indifferent to your comment.That’s the difference.Of course I’m pissed off,so it makes sense that I’d have a longwinded response.And if I have to spend half an afternoon of one day of my life to express how illogical the haters like some of this article's readers truly are; if it takes me that long to truly defend a film that I enjoy,then I’d gladly do it.What am I really losing? Just so these haters don’t comment that I also repeated points in my counter-arguments,I feel obliged to say that I would not have to repeat myself about a rhetorical problem that they have if you did not have that problem in the first place.It’s perfectly fine to repeat a criticism of someone else’s work if it’s justified.
Also,if you’re going to whine about how I’m hypocritical for insulting you and patronizing you when I say that you’re in the wrong for doing it,read this too:
First of all, I like Frozen,so some of you already think I’m worthless.How could anyone possibly sink lower in your eyes? Second of all,these haters and also the haters who read this article have done nothing to earn anything but contempt.Other haters have used their words to say that a person’s opinion is wrong,but you have the nerve to insult those who disagree with you as people instead of stopping with their opinion.
For lack of better phraseology,YOU DESERVE IT! You comment like a bitch,you get retorted like a bitch!
I'm truly sorry if my ranting and anger got out of hand,but to me,this was the last straw.
As always,Smell ya' later!
I think this describes how the hate comments affect some people(myself included).
