Melvin Frohike

Huh? What in the world is a "winter movie"?! I seem to be the only one who doesn't get it. Do some contend that the real-life temperature outside of the theater has to match the general temperature of the setting of a movie in order for it to be successful? This seems like an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I can imagine holiday-themed movies having some correlation in regard to timing, whether that is actually true or not, or maybe a movie that is about a particular season as its main theme, but Frozen isn't that. It gets cold in the movie, but it takes place during the summer with all of the characters wishing for the return of normal summer temperatures (like much of the audience themselves would in the dead of winter)--hardly a winter-oriented movie. Much of the movie takes place during summer with normal temperatures (Anna even mentions how hot it is--twice), so is the contention here that these parts, which include the ending, just don't work for a winter release? This hypothesis not only requires extraordinary evidence to prove any validity, but also to demonstrate its relevance to the movies being discussed. Its relevance to Frozen is highly questionable as it is, so imagine Frozen II, which takes place during the fall and does not have magically-induced winter temperatures.

The tools Pixar and WDAS use are capable of rendering CGI that is just as photorealistic as any special effects studio can make. The question is how those tools are used, what data they are given, and what additional processes are applied. For example, the background environment in Tangled actually started out as too photorealistic for the directors, so special shaders and other plugins were developed to give the movie a more fantastical rather than literally realistic appearance. For Frozen they used more paintings and went light on shading, depending on the scene, which gives this movie a flatter, more "graphic" look. They could have made it photorealistic by using real textures from real life and full rendering, but that was not what they were shooting for. Frozen II carries over the same style, except that with more time and resources available they were able to make the environment more detailed than before. Maybe they went overboard in some scenes, but their intention was not strict photorealism; it is also possible that they chose to make certain scenes photorealistic to deliberately make the characters look out of place as an artistic choice. For instance, it's kind of creepy and disconcerting to see Elsa on that beach, and that might well have been the directors' intention. It's not about "good" or "bad," it's about the goals and choices of the filmmakers. If you used photographs of real leaves and rocks as textures, then the CGI is going to look a lot more photorealistic than if you used hand-painted art like WDAS very often do. It actually takes more work, talent, and artistry to make CGI visually rich but non-photorealistic, while anyone can easily photograph real-life textures and use those. What can be good or bad are the artistic choices of the directors. Photorealism was obviously the right choice for the fake The Lion King since fake (but realistic-looking) live action was their goal, but arguably the wrong choice was made for The Good Dinosaur and Toy Story 4. Both Pixar and WDAS are capable of making photorealistic or non-photorealistic CGI, but it's up to the director(s) to decide what they want for each movie. For example, Pete Docter went quite cartoony for Inside Out, not because Pixar couldn't make it photorealistic but because cartoony was what he wanted. I'll tell you one thing that Pixar and especially (in my opinion) WDAS can do that the animators on the fake The Lion King probably couldn't do: really good character animation (either that or they weren't allowed to do their best).

While this franchise may be somewhat bold in some ways, I don't think Disney are at the point where they'd actually permanently kill off one of their princess characters. Maybe someday it will be something they'd consider, given the right story and real-life circumstances for it, but almost certainly not just yet, I'd say (and probably not for a long time). If you mean the MPAA rating, it's going to be PG, either way. That's simply what the movie will get, and there is no sense to these ratings that I can discern. The movie is from Disney Animation, so it automatically gets a PG these days, while in the 1990s it would have gotten a G rating seemingly regardless of content. Walt Disney stuck Snow White in a glass coffin, but that movie got a G rating later on, too. Maybe nowadays it would get a PG. Anyway, in Frozen II apparently there will be an issue of potential separation based on what Elsa learns on her quest, but I don't think anyone is going to die. You never know, though. Elsa and Anna are pretty safe, but who knows about Olaf....

It probably won't be huge or even large in Latin America. Being a first sequel, it will likely grow some in terms of admissions, but with exchange rates being what they are today, it may either slightly grow or drop from the original in this region. I expect significant growth in Europe and China, though. There was never any indication whatsoever that Elsa would be involved romantically with a female character. Some highly vocal people were calling for it and trying to pressure the directors into doing it, but it was never something they seriously considered, much less promised, as far as I'm aware. If there was any hype, it was entirely created in the public/media imagination. Fake news, anyone?

I think the situation has changed quite a bit for this franchise as far as China is concerned, at least based on what I've heard about it becoming far more well known in this country and reportedly fairly popular sometime after the original movie's run. Take this for the unsubstantiated rumor/anecdote that it is, but it could be true. This market has opened up more to western movies, as well, since that time. If the sequel happens to gross a similar amount, then that would be a coincidence, I believe. While that has been true thus far regarding China specifically, Frozen did not appear to underperform in Japan and South Korea, so it's not so much about western versus eastern, but what China happens to prefer. Frozen II may not break any box office records in China, but significantly outperforming the original movie in this market seems plausible. If it does, then the question is whether that will be enough to offset the significant drop in Japan (typical even for first sequels), which is practically assured.

A lot of people do (falsely) think that, yet CinemaScore pegged Frozen's DOM female-male split at 57-43, which is well balanced among female-led movies for this market, and better balanced than many of Marvel's movies, which have often skewed more strongly male than Frozen skewed female. If 80% of its audience had been female, then you might have had a point regarding the DOM market. As for Latin America, I don't know what the audience gender split was, but even if we assume that the original movie skewed far more female than in the DOM, could its numbers not still grow from what they had been? Today's exchange rates would work against that, but at least in admissions couldn't it grow, or does that only happen for movies that are perceived to be masculine? As for hating on "love" it's kind of a sad statement if men in some cultures really hate on that and think it's not for them. I consider myself a very masculine man who has mostly so-called "conservative" views (yep, I shoot guns and everything), and I think that love for family has nothing to do with gender. As you might expect, I generally can't stand romantic comedies, but that's a different sort of thing, and I find the kind of romance in Disney animated features and, for that matter, Titanic quite acceptable. I think the real problem is that people tend to be prejudiced against things they really know nothing about, and immature about subjects like love of all types. A fair number of the haters I've seen are women. Most of them were driven crazy by the viral songs of Titanic and Frozen, or at least that's what they say. Frankly, what I'm sick of hearing is how sick these people are of these songs! They must listen to a lot of radio broadcasts or something, because I never heard either "My Heart Will Go On" (which was just in the credits anyway) or "Let It Go" all that many times back in the day. Wouldn't this help some, though? Why didn't The Incredibles do anywhere close to Incredibles 2 numbers DOM? It's because the latter was an anticipated sequel, of course. Couldn't Frozen II likewise grow in DOM, especially since the ad campaign has succeeded in changing the perceived image of the franchise? Completely? Couldn't the same story with only minor differences have been told with male protagonists? Elsa and Anna were never super-girly girls doing super-girly things. A few things would change, undoubtedly, but I think the story essentially would have been the same. That's Pixar, however, and of course they always feel the most comfortable with male protagonists, given their internal culture. They don't seem to know what to do with female characters, except perhaps for Jessie, but she's a tomboy anyway. Is anyone going to suggest that Onward will be more successful DOM because of the gender of its protagonists? Just from what I know (and have confirmed), Frozen II should be a far superior movie to Chicken Little, even if they were to royally screw up everything else. I think someone must be kidding. Frozen II will be big in Japan for sure, but the drop from the original might possibly be quite big, too. Frozen was a true phenomenon there that will be difficult to match at the box office (especially since sequels tend to drop in Japan in general), while in the DOM market I think it could have done better, and WDAS appear to have made some choices that will give the sequel a decent chance to grow from the original at the box office. As for South Korea, I don't know because I think its phenomenal success there had a lot to do with its songs, and this aspect might be difficult to replicate. They're really quite finicky about western animation over there, so it is very difficult to predict. It sure would help to know how the trailers are being received. If the Koreans would most like a rehash of the original movie, then they aren't going to get it. The sequel will be more like the original than we've been shown thus far, but they don't know that. As impactful but not nearly as viral and overplayed would be the ideal scenario. Personally, I completely agree with you, but in being forced to make a sequel they had never intended to make, the directors have chosen for their sequel concept the one thing that seemingly the vast majority of people have been wanting to know: why Elsa has cryokinetic powers. I'm perfectly happy with having no explanation whatsoever (she was simply born with them, like Harry Potter) and from a story point of view would rather not have an explanation, but I'm forced to admit three things: 1) many people really want to know about the origins of Elsa's powers, 2) if this were real life then Elsa would certainly also want to know (a natural story progression), and 3) the particular choices the directors have made in going this route are not only very good in and of themselves but I think are very good for the box office at the same time. The directors are not giving the audience more of what they think the audience want (i.e. a futile rehash scenario fueled by the directors' own egos), they're giving the audience what they really, actually want, and in an organic way that justifies making Elsa into a freaking superhero! Additionally, it's part-prequel and part-sequel all at once, covering all of the bases. If they and WDAS can nail the story and emotions and all that, which they tend to be rather good at, then I really have no idea what Frozen II may be capable of. No, I'm not in the $2B WW camp, but it could beat the original DOM and WW, and maybe it could do so handily.

Does it stand to reason at all that only Frozen II could actually surpass said record still held by the original movie? One animated sequel of an original animated feature that grossed much less almost did. Ah, but that one had superheroes, and superheroes are still hot right now. The only thing that could beat that sequel and the original Frozen would be a movie with a Disney princess who also happens to be a superpowered superhero. Say, WDAS should make a movie like that, but I doubt they're smart enough. Domestically, I thought that Frozen underperformed for such a phenomenon. I still see numerous people who are proud that they've never seen the original movie (as a result of the severe backlash). Did Frozen do as well as it did at the domestic box office only because it became such a cultural phenomenon, in spite of it, or some of both? By the way, I have also seen a bunch of these people (here and there online in large venues such as YouTube) become interested because of the sequel's trailers; some of them even finally watched the original movie, and the response has generally been positive in such cases. The sequel's trailers are apparently helping the franchise as a whole shake off some of the backlash and stigma against it. A 4+ OW multiplier is nothing for a WDAS movie. OK, this one might open extra-big, but the original had a 6 multiplier. Frozen underperformed in Latin America for some reason, leaving room for growth in a region that if I remember correctly tends to favor animated sequels growing, in general. I don't know if it can do that, but the original's run in China seemed to be leggy when it was abruptly cut short. I doubt this will happen to the sequel, and I expect it to grow significantly in China, in any case. I can't see that happening, but China could potentially more than make up for this. Well, that leaves plenty of room for growth, then, and in Europe animated sequels commonly seem to grow from the originals. You can't have it both ways--Frozen II dropping or not growing much whether Frozen did super-well in a particular region or not. It almost certainly will not have a song as viral as "Let It Go" (such songs are few and far between), but would this really be a net negative? Many people think that Frozen has too many songs, and therefore feels forced in this respect. Imagine trading half of the songs (keeping only the strongest, most essential and relevant ones) and replacing them with action scenes. I bet there will be a sizable net gain, and hopefully no undeserved backlash from a song going viral this time. Now imagine Frozen II having an ad campaign that highly impresses the public while showing us nearly nothing. Imagine the story being really surprising once again (I know it's nothing like what most people expect right now, at least), and the action and drama (that people have responded so positively to) being way more intense than what we've been shown so far (at times). Some of this we don't have to imagine, and the rest is not hard to imagine.

There are definite reasons for all of this, I believe. First of all, animation is a bit different in the sense that usually an old-school type of studio system is used, in which there is great continuity of staff between movies, along with an unusual (for movies in general) level of collaboration within each studio (even between the various directors in some cases). This comes straight from how animation was produced since very early on (it's just about as old as live-action filming, at least in short form), through the processes that Walt Disney and his staff at WDAS (their current name) put in place, and then from there it was more or less emulated by every feature animation studio; in this sense, WDAS is where virtually all of the current big-budget western animated features ultimately trace their lineage from, even if their styles have become quite different. What this means is that, true or not, it seems that in animation entire studios are the authors of their movies, and this encourages people to become loyal fans of certain animation studios, which creates much more of an atmosphere of rivalry between these studios and their fans. In this forum there apparently are many fans of Pixar and/or WDAS (and a few of other animation studios), and the vast majority of them don't think much of Illumination's movies in general. With the possible exception of the original Despicable Me, they all just seem like second-rate B-movies. Many of these fans like animated features from a variety of other studios, so I think it's an honest opinion, not just automatic dislike for a competitor. Now juxtapose this with the fact that Illumination has for quite a long time now been "eating the lunches" of WDAS and Pixar at the box office, year after year, frequently ending up as the top animation studio (except when WDAS released Frozen and Pixar released Incredibles 2--both enormous blockbusters, especially for animation); and in some years Illumination even beat them both combined. I hope it's not envy that leads to hatred in these cases, and actually I don't think it is--it's a combination of honestly not thinking much of their movies in terms of quality and the strong sense that they are not deserving of the massive box office revenue they take in. One movie here or there is simply a head-scratcher, but movie after movie and year after year, this situation starts to build and become a huge annoyance! It feels like there is no justice in this case. Not that it's right to hope for Illumination to falter or fail, even because of that, but if it's an indication that the "unwashed masses" have finally come to their senses regarding this studio and their movies, then that would be a good thing as well as a relief. As for being an underdog, The Iron Giant was an underdog that didn't succeed, and a number of other movies that most animation fans in this forum like have underperformed. Few are going to root for Illumination as an underdog as long as they don't like their movies. Wishing for Illumination's demise is probably going too far, but seeing their movies earn less at the box office would be a welcome change--it feels like there is some justice after all.

Whoops, somehow my post was garbled. Disregard.

How about ambivalent? It kind of means the same thing, but it has three more syllables, so it's four times better! It's just like how four movies are better than three--more, more, more! Has Toy Story 5 been announced yet? Can't have too many endings, you know.

Bingo! Well, Frozen actually didn't perform as well as it could or should have in China, grossing only $48 million, probably due to timing (it didn't do badly, though, considering). In the grand scheme of things, it came just a wee bit too early to catch the China train, as it were, and on a smaller scale it was released during a bad time for various reasons, and its run, which appeared to have strong legs, was abruptly cut short. Releases and schedules work differently in China, of course, and Frozen wasn't treated like a movie that had much potential, all of which had been set up before everyone realized how big it would become. Since then, however, I have heard from sources associated with Disney theme parks (including Shanghai Disneyland, of course) who claim that Frozen has become much better known and very popular in China, which obviously bodes well for Frozen II's prospects in that market. This time its theatrical release will almost certainly be set up for a potential mega-blockbuster run, and if what I've been hearing is true, then watch out! I'm sure it was the particular combination of several characteristics Frozen possesses that allowed it to "speak" to Asian cultures in general like few other western movies do. While these cultures are all unique, there are some things that are common between them, especially in the Sinosphere, which is East Asia (China, Japan, and the Korean peninsula) plus Vietnam. A movie having female protagonists doesn't mean much on its own, but having two sisters in a fairy tale involving magic that affects nature is a kind of mythology that I think Asians tend to immediately feel a familiarity with and a connection to, and thusly Frozen immediately penetrated cultural barriers. As for the songs, sure, they helped, but other WDAS movies have had wonderful songs, too, and never made much of a dent in the South Korean box office, for example, before Frozen. Interestingly, in this light, the songs had a particularly strong positive impact on the box office in South Korea, and this probably would not have happened if the movie hadn't gotten their attention first with its other characteristics. But wait, there's more. Frozen's message about the true meaning of love, along with its powerful demonstration of family love and loyalty, resonated particularly well in Asia, including South Korea where I've heard that the movie and its songs became popular in schools, as in sung by children, sometimes at the behest of teachers! I guess they were trying to get it out of the children's systems before commencing with schoolwork, but I've also heard that Koreans liked what it was teaching their children. If you're going to make an out-of-control fad out of a western movie with viral songs, then it might as well be one that is particularly culturally compatible with Asians and teaches strong morals from the perspective of your own culture. It was a win-win for everyone, and then there are other things like aesthetics. While I really don't know for a fact, it may be that Asians find Frozen and its protagonists (especially Elsa) particularly beautiful and appealing. It's just the perfect western movie for Asian (particularly East Asian) cultures--a spectacular big-budget blockbuster that they can easily and readily embrace, for once. Frozen's most amazing box office run, though, was in Japan, and while the songs weren't quite as big there (Japanese people don't like to sing so much in public), I think in addition to its Asian-friendly characteristics and the other ones that Koreans also went for, Frozen caught a certain zeitgeist with women's rights issues and hikikomori (severely isolated adolescents are a major thing in Japan) that were the topics of the day. In addition, Japanese people are more into Disney than Koreans in general, and with everything else it had going for it in Asia, this movie might as well have been one of Japan's own, but with qualities that couldn't practically be achieved in Japan because they don't make $150 million-budget movies there. Frankly, this is a no-brainer--sometimes the most blatantly obvious, in-your-face answer is the truest one. Big Hero 6 has an Asian (at least half-Asian, anyway) protagonist and is in many ways very similar to an archetypal Japanese/Asian superhero movie. WDAS were on a real Asian-compatible kick, weren't they? Good explanation, and in addition I think that in China in particular people were very impressed with the detective story. Talking animals and detective stories are of particular interest there, and WDAS combined them so smoothly and seemingly effortlessly, and with such appeal that Chinese people wish they could do the same with their animated features (China is, of course, still at an early stage in really getting into the global filmmaking business, and are learning a lot, which gives them a certain point of view). In a strange way, possibly by embracing Zootopia so fiercely they're sending a signal to their own animation filmmakers about what they want; in other words, they kind of made this movie their own. Yes, I'm comparing this scenario with how China has embraced DWA's Kung Fu Panda franchise--these particular animal movies are goals for them.

WDAS movies this millennium have typically been undersold, but on the average they have the strongest legs of any set of movies from any studio (including Pixar), so they typically make up for it. The two Wreck-It Ralph movies just have relatively weak legs for WDAS movies. And by the way, easily the weakest marketing (by Disney) I've seen was for Frozen, so it's really no excuse. Each WDAS movie has to generate its own WOM, and the majority of them of late have not struggled this much. I haven't noticed the public putting any faith in the studio--each WDAS movie is a wait-and-see proposition and must be good in order to succeed. Not that the Wreck-It Ralph movies aren't good, but the public don't like them as much as the others. They sell their animated features more aggressively for sure, and one reason is that these movies--on the average, mind you--don't have the legs of WDAS movies. To be fair, Vanellope was already identified as a princess in the original movie. I do agree that the Internet concept was a bit forced for these characters, though. I think what most people wanted was an expansion of the video game universe before getting into the Internet and things like that. Maybe with multiple sequels a larger story could have unfolded by era, albeit the trap in such a concept is repeating the same plot over and over, like with the Toy Story movies. This could be avoided if one is mindful of it, though. In any case, I suspect that Rich Moore realized he'd be lucky to get just one sequel out of this franchise, so he was going to use his personal favorite Internet concept, which came too early and therefore felt forced or artificial for these characters. As for the princess thing, it was fun, but felt a bit disjointed with how some of their designs were changed while others were not. I think the designers tried to match them to the aesthetic of this universe, but some ended up looking weird. Maybe I'm the only one this bothered, but in any case it sure didn't feel like these were the real princesses, and truth be told, they weren't--they were like weird Internet avatars of the princesses. That's perfect for the Internet concept, but it felt phony at the same time. To be fair, it's easier to sell the concept when it consists primarily of bare yellow butts and random utterances of "Banana!" You really can't go wrong with that kind of concept--it's simple enough even for marketers and the public to understand. Quick, tell me what Frozen's tagline was. Exactly, it didn't even have one. It would have had one if Disney's marketers could have thought one up, but they didn't understand what they were selling, or if they did then they still didn't know how to sell it. As usual, the movie had to sell itself, as most WDAS movies typically do. Legs certainly count for the box office, and the Wreck-It Ralph movies, for whatever reasons, had weaker legs. It's not as though Pixar movies get any better marketing--they tend to be undersold, too. Disney used to regularly release WDAS movies during the summer, back in the 1990s starting with The Lion King, but I think their marketing and distribution staff consider Pixar movies stronger, and therefore better able to withstand the summer competition. Other studios simply want the kids out-of-school-crowd so they go for the summer, but WDAS movies have to stay out of Pixar's way, so they get the November releases, which, truth be told, favor movies with strong legs anyway. You're right. Although I've been trying to show that marketing wasn't completely to blame, they really messed up here. The princess scene should have been kept as a surprise; at the very least they should have showed less of it much closer to the movie's release date. Show just enough awesomeness to impress, show things that get people intrigued and asking questions that they really want answered, and don't show any more than this. Whatever you do, do not scratch a particular "itch" so thoroughly so early and let people forget! So far this is what the marketing for Frozen II, for example, has been getting right. Heh, the first "full" trailer is actually shorter than the teaser! But people are dying to know what happens in droves, and that'll get them into theaters. For the younger children, how about another short two-minute "trailer" full of intriguing charm and cuteness this time, with a dash of the cool adult stuff at the end as a reminder? I like the new marketing strategy so far, and it's too bad other WDAS movies could not have benefited from it. That and the fact that neither WDAS nor Pixar receive any government subsidies and/or tax breaks specifically designated for animation work, while the other major studios get one or both of those. For example, Illumination gets paid by France to produce their animation there, Sony is paid by Canada (probably British Columbia specifically), and Blue Sky (now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Disney) gets paid by Connecticut, while California pays WDAS and Pixar nothing. Additionally, the cost of living is very high in the Los Angeles and Bay areas, so WDAS and Pixar staffers tend to get paid more, I presume.

I agree in the sense that they've both had creative slumps now, and by coincidence they more or less took turns with this. Hmmm...I don't know. From WDAS, I think Ralph Breaks the Internet definitely could have been better, and from Pixar, personally, I don't think they've been doing so great lately, outside of the box office. Maybe it's just me, but Incredibles 2 seemed routine and boring (I barely even remember what happened), and I've yet to get all the way through Coco. I know a lot of people on this board love the latter, but it seemed more like a long shopping list of cultural references thrown at me, complete with a bunch of winks at the audience, than a story that flowed naturally (i.e. really, really felt like it was made by someone not of that culture). Frankly, I enjoyed Book of Life a lot more, despite its cheesy aspects and its annoyingly in-your-face girl-power bits--it was more watchable and fun, in my opinion. And there's a Toy Story 4 now? I thought three of them were more than enough. Let me guess, the toys get separated from their kid, there is some variation of an existential crisis touched upon as they scramble to find each other and get home, and Woody has to decide where he belongs. They're good, entertaining movies--I even have the whole boxed Blu-ray set with all of the extras--but enough is enough. What is this one supposed to be about, now? I'm guessing living toys happily existing without their kids or even an adoring collector? That's just stepping into weirdness and making it harder for me to willingly suspend my disbelief (maybe partly because I'm not willing anymore!). And as for Onward, uh...yeah.... At least Frozen II is looking pretty spectacular so far, I have to admit. I would have chosen a different subject to explore, but on the bright side it looks like they're not merely trying to repeat the original movie, which is a very good sign (the original is fantastic, but trying to repeat its success would still have been a bad idea in general). Looks like there will be more sequels in WDAS' future, then. Oh well. Not between Disney and the other conglomerates right now, though. Imagine if every Disney studio were firing on all cylinders at once. Even when Lucasfilm and the Disney live-action studio make lackluster movies, they still tend to rake in money, but imagine if they made good-to-great movies. As for Marvel, I'm not a fan and think they're monstrously overrated, but I think most people consider their movies great, so I'll go along with that for the sake of this argument. That said, I do like their Captain America movies quite a bit, and think Infinity War (made by their best filmmakers) is pretty good (haven't seen Endgame yet, but expect it will be good). These guys should have made all of the Avengers movies because in my opinion the other ones frankly suck. Anyway, back on topic, I've previously posted a brief region-by-region OS analysis that predicted an increase at the box office overall for Frozen II over the original movie, but couldn't make up my mind about the DOM market. I think I've been swayed of late to expect that it will grow domestically, too. Yeah, that seems to be the consensus, and most of you probably think it's a no-brainer, but it wasn't so obvious to me because Frozen was an outsized hit for an original Disney animated feature. In cases like this, the first sequel might perform more like the second or third sequel, especially in the DOM market where sequels tend to wear thin at the box office earlier than in many or most other markets. What changed my mind, at least for now, is how successful its unexpected marketing strategy has been in getting people genuinely intrigued without quite frustrating them with the lack of information. Additionally, it has become clear that many if not most people have a very dim, negative view of the original movie, considering it a lightweight movie made for the 6-and-under crowd--happy-go-lucky, drama-free romping and singing that adults can barely tolerate. Those short films have done a lot of damage, I strongly suspect. This makes the sequel look even better in comparison since it appears, to them, to be significantly more "dark" and "adult" than the original. For example, multiple YouTube comments to that effect have received thousands of likes. The main question this raises is whether they will be disappointed once they see the movie (or maybe the first trailer targeting children) and discover that Frozen II will be a lot like the original in tonal balance. Well, they might still be impressed if they really think the original is only for toddlers and kindergarteners. For now, the marketing has had extremely positive results, so I'm predicting an increase (still thinking about how much, and more information would come in handy).

I doubt this is much of a spoiler, but I'll wrap it up just in case: Probably not this, but if you watch the second teaser really closely, you'll see Correct, I think, although she was still born with it. This is similar to Rapunzel, who had an external source for her power but was born with it.

Yes, precisely, my fellow bearer of the Y chromosome. These mighty, manly men of muscle and mettle, so full of machismogoric masculinity it's certifiably toxic to the feeble, pay homage here to the power of love and fear, and to the beauty and danger of ice that are embodied in the mythic tale of two Nordic goddesses--sisters who were driven apart but fought to protect each other and demonstrated love through sacrifice. Indeed there is nothing real men respect more than love for family and protecting family, and therefore no Disney animated feature is more worthy of and appropriate for our appreciation than Frozen. Plus it doesn't hurt that Elsa and Anna are super-cute...I mean, not that it's necessary or relevant, really...but it doesn't hurt....

Whoa, someone just got pwned! And all that utter tripe about Frozen supposedly being too girly, and would have weaker legs than Tangled as a result--hilarious! 🤣 In reality (and hindsight, to be fair), Frozen's DOM male/female balance was comparable to that of the Hunger Games series, which for a female-led movie is among the best--a bit better than Tangled and Maleficent, which in turn are better than the vast majority of female-led movies. It's also better balanced than Marvel's MCU movies, which skew male more heavily, on the average. Boys and men like Frozen just fine, thank you very much. And Frozen's legs were far stronger than Tangled's legs, which were very strong themselves.

What does it mean to be a "strong" character? Can't there be good stories about "weak" characters who learned to be "strong," or do they always have to be paragons of strength from the start? And can't there be good stories in which characters are "trapped" in some way and have to find their way out, or do they have to be in control at all times, unflappable, and invincible? I think that Elsa is a character who ideally serves the movie she is in. Frozen has a combination of two sisters who were once very close but have been forced far apart, and a grand, overarching theme of love versus fear. In order to find their way back to one another at a similar level of understanding, Anna, who is fearless but knows nothing about love, has to learn the true meaning of love, while Elsa, who knows love but is crippled by fear, has to learn that her own fear of herself is her true enemy. Each had different problems related to the main theme to overcome, and instead of simply being a weak person, Elsa started out as a rather confident 8-year-old with great magical powers. She was strong, which represents her potential as well as ours, but was made weak by having one of her strengths--namely her love for others--turned into fear, her great weakness. This happened because while still a child Elsa was made to fear her powers and herself. She believed that she was dangerous to the touch, and this was reinforced by a crucial rule of her magic that actually, literally made her dangerous if (and only if) she feared herself (hurting others by touching them). This is a particularly insidious and cruel vicious cycle that virtually no one, even the strongest psychologically, could overcome on their own. For that matter, it is difficult to imagine how anyone else could help someone caught in such a trap. By cleverly trapping a strong, powerful character in a position of utter weakness and despair, Frozen gains both a certain story tension (more involving and sympathetic for the audience) as well as a preview of this character's potential to be confident and strong, so that it doesn't simply appear out of nowhere later on. Seems like a fantastic story setup to me. And amazingly there was actually a way for Elsa to resolve her problem, although it took Anna apparently dying by getting turned into magical ice and then coming back to life with Elsa touching her, which finally convinced Elsa that she wasn't dangerous after all, as long as she didn't fear herself--an empowering message for anyone who has ever faced serious self-doubt or felt for any reason that they could not be their true selves. Thus empowered, and being able to feel and express love once more, Elsa saved Arendelle (and who knows how much else) by dispelling the Eternal Winter. The Ice Palace took very little time and effort to make--Elsa did it to show herself and us what she could do if she weren't trapped in one of the most fiendish vicious cycles I've ever seen in a movie. As for sustenance, this part of the movie lasted a couple of days at the most. She may or may not have had a long-term plan, but firstly she wasn't tied to the place because it took nothing to build, and secondly it doesn't matter because she was found before she needed to do anything anyway. Or maybe like her Internet avatar in Ralph Breaks the Internet she could conjure whipped cream and such. She performs some matter transmutation and other telekinetic feats in the movie, after all--it just wasn't emphasized, but for all we know she could conjure all types of things, possibly including food. Whatever. Is it really that important? "Let It Go" serves several purposes, but if you think about it, for the most part it is purposely subverted. As for being passive, what could she have done? Touched perfectly healthy people in an attempt to prove that she wasn't dangerous? Her fear of doing so would have made her dangerous, and therefore this would have backfired, potentially causing grievous injuries or death. Anna doing so was one of the problems. She was fearless to a fault, and the harder she pushed matters, the greater danger she was in. Fearing that Anna would get hurt or killed because she was so pushy and grabby, Elsa had no choice but to retreat into exile. If Anna had touched Elsa's skin at any time, she might have gotten her hands frozen off or worse, and Elsa wasn't going to take that risk with Anna. Like I said, Elsa's love--normally a strength--had become her weakness. I'm not blaming Anna (nor does Elsa blame her), but there was an issue with some of her traits that made it impossible for Elsa and her to communicate for long. And of course Anna's pushiness ultimately led to the movie's resolution, but not before Elsa accidentally blasted her in the heart, dooming her to freeze into a magical ice statue. We can't blame Elsa for wanting to avoid that, as there was no way she could have known that their problems would be resolved by taking that path. Of course, Elsa saving Arendelle had to happen after her problem was resolved--nothing else would have made sense in terms of story. If you mean just being there for Anna and her people, Elsa tried to do that at the coronation party, but you saw how that ended. Anna actually grabbed her glove! If she had gotten too close, put just a little self-fear into Elsa, and touched her, then Anna might well have died right there! It's no wonder that Elsa freaked out. Earnestly put yourself in her place. She had to get out of there, and fast. Elsa tried, but Anna wasn't going to give it time and find out how to make everything work out for them both. She had to force everything--including an engagement--and wouldn't listen. Elsa must have been hoping that at 18 now Anna had grown out of this behavior, but she hadn't. I for one think they are, and this is one reason Frozen is in the top tier of Disney animated features. Well, Lilo and Nani got to be sisters who lived with each other rather than being separated (although there was a threat of separation, it didn't happen when both were very young), while Elsa and Anna got to portray a different aspect of sisterhood that is one of the main subtexts of Frozen: sisters who grew apart and reunited years later when they were both at a more similar maturity level (that's what the white streak in Anna's hair and its later absence symbolized). This was based on writer-director Jennifer Lee's real-life relationship with her older sister. It's too bad that you think they are inferior sisters, but this sort of thing does happen in real life, and in this case was based on a personal story. Although they are very different types of sister stories, I happen to think the way Frozen handled things was far more dramatic, moving, and compelling than what was done in Lilo & Stitch, although the latter was nicely believable. Each served its purpose in the larger story it was helping to tell.

I think that Anna learned more than Tiana and especially Rapunzel, though. She had no clue about what love was, and her journey and arc took her through many false examples right up to the climax, and then she committed, of her own volition and in an organic manner for the character and story, the ultimate act of true love. And the symbolism of the white streak in her hair, as it relates to this, is a nice additional touch--it's gone at the end of the movie because she finally understands that the true meaning of love is sacrifice. And she and her sister Elsa are reunited because she finally understands the sacrifices that Elsa made out of love for others, especially Anna herself, completing the movie's main subtext of sisters who, just as in real life, had grown apart because of a difference in maturity level and found each other again as adults (based on Jennifer Lee's personal story with her own older sister). Tiana and Rapunzel are two of my favorite Disney princesses/heroines, with Belle and Mulan being two of the earlier ones, but the main reason for this is that I find them highly appealing as people (each in their own way). For instance, when I see that yearning, aching curiosity that Rapunzel has for the stars, she just totally melts my heart. That's how I feel about her, but it doesn't mean that she has a better arc than Anna or that she is a better protagonist, and frankly I think the opposite is true. Anna is a better protagonist than any of my favorite Disney princesses/heroines. Well, it's OK to have to be rescued sometimes, as no character has to be invincible in order to be "strong" or liked. No one doubts that Rapunzel is a pretty cool, capable gal, and Eugene needed to be rescued himself earlier, too. As much as I love Tangled, it always bugged me that he cut her hair--taking away her magical powers--without her consent, though (especially since he could have done it immediately after she had healed him). Anyway, if we must compare which girl is better at traditional boy stuff like being heroic and saving people , then Anna is probably even tougher than Rapunzel, and she was the hero of her movie, albeit she needed to be saved at times. In the end, she saved herself, though, at the same time as she saved Elsa. Not exactly, and Spidey Freak made a terrific counterargument. Additionally, while Anna did need to be saved at the climax and tried to reach Kristoff so that he could save her (once more), Anna ended up saving herself in yet another twist--the biggest, most meaningful one in the movie--by sacrificing her own life for Elsa. Without anyone realizing it earlier (even the trolls), in doing so Anna had committed an act of true love. It was never a kiss from either Hans or Kristoff that was going to save her, although it was important that she believed this at the time because it means that she knowingly and willingly gave up her own imminent rescue in order to save Elsa, making her act a heroic one. Rapunzel sacrificed her freedom for Eugene, but that's not really equivalent, while what Anna did was directly related to her arc and what she had to learn in order to develop.

I think it is akin to envy because both are a form of misplaced hatred. Envy is when one covets what another has, but instead of merely wishing one had the same thing or were in the same position, one irrationally resents or even hates the other person as a result. Morally, envy is considered one of the worst of the capital/deadly/cardinal vices, and consequently it is one of the more common traits of villains in stories. The backlash effect (or whatever you wish to call it) we're discussing here is not exactly the same thing and is not quite as serious, of course, but it is a form of irrational misplaced hatred. I understand the annoyance, but that is no reason to hate the song or the movie it comes from, as they and their creators did not intend for any of this to happen. If you think that backlash is a perfectly natural reaction, then I think this is disturbing, in a way, because it reminds me of the misplaced hatred of envy. Sure, envy is a natural reaction for some people, too, but that doesn't make it a good thing, and I'd make the same argument for backlash. Same here, and frankly it wasn't--there was never any notion of making a sequel in the minds of the directors whatsoever before they were told to come up with ideas for one by Disney management. The sequel was going to happen one way or another, with or without their cooperation. They probably wouldn't have been fired for refusing, but instead were given a choice between making the sequel and working on a new original project as planned while someone else made the sequel, which really left them no choice since Frozen means so much to them. To be fair to Disney, the kind of money that Frozen merchandise rakes in practically forced their hand, as well. They have a legal obligation as a publicly-traded corporation to maximize shareholder value by increasing revenue and profit, and it would be virtually impossible to justify not making a sequel that would help keep this highly lucrative franchise rolling. If sequels weren't the norm today, then it might have been possible to argue against, but they are the norm and audiences keep eating them up. Iger also gave a fair amount of time (as in years) for Lee and Buck to come up with a concept they liked, and they needed every bit of that. He wants them to make a great movie, and they want to make a great movie, but it was always going to happen regardless. Fortunately, beyond this mandate, the directors have apparently been given the same creative freedom they usually have. They have not been ordered to try to replicate "Let It Go", and they're not trying (not that they tried the first time, either); they have not been ordered to make a pumped-up version of the original movie, and they're not doing that; they really seem to be making the movie they want to make, as long as they've managed to come up with a concept that they actually like (not sure--I hope so). Clearly this is not always the case with sequels, many of which deliberately attempt to give audiences more of the same because it's considered "safe" and a sure thing at the box office (which it isn't, but that's what studio executives tend to believe). Not this fan (and you're unlikely to find a bigger one), but I think the sequel mandate was largely about merchandise revenue, which is why Pixar has had to keep making Cars movies. Frozen offers the additional benefits of greater box office revenue, the Broadway show, and making for a positive public image for the company (the minority of dedicated haters notwithstanding), but merchandise is where the real money is made, and sequels help keep that money flowing in. As for WDAS' sequel history, not counting the minor anthology films back during their slow period, prior to WIR2 they had made The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000 (arguably a continuation, but I think it counts as a sequel), and Winnie the Pooh (a minor project they took on to keep hand-drawn animation going a bit longer). That's the poor sequel record--purely in terms of box office revenue--that I spoke of earlier, and WIR2, while hardly a flop, did not perform as a first sequel would be expected to (especially overseas), and was barely profitable by Disney blockbuster standards. Sadly, for me and for WDAS, Frozen II is with almost absolute certainty going to emphatically end this "eternal winter" as an excuse for WDAS to not make sequels like everyone else is doing. About WIR2, though, I'm pretty sure that it was creative-driven, as Rich Moore had been wanting to make a sequel to Wreck-It Ralph for a long time. Perhaps the concept he had such a burning passion for wasn't as great as he thought it was after all, though, judging from the reactions I've seen. Or maybe it was the execution that faltered. In any case, he was the guy who also thought that a whole Disney princess movie would be a good idea, but whoops, he left WDAS for Sony, which is too bad for those who want such a movie. But I digress.

I figure they probably will retcon it (in their minds, since it's not actually in the original movie) unless another alignment of the planets, specifically, were to spell doom for the world, leaving Elsa as our only hope, and they can't think of a better, more meaningful origin. I'm hoping that they have managed to think of a more meaningful origin that won't contradict anything that is actually in the original movie or compromise the metaphor of Elsa's powers. Your suggestion makes sense, although at this point, based on what we've seen in the Frozen II teasers, it sure seems as though Lee and Buck have decided to make the other characters with powers elemental spirits or sprites rather than humans. While this may not necessarily preclude Anna from having heat powers, it makes the prospect less likely, I think. Perhaps the directors have chosen to keep Elsa unique (as a human with powers) and have her adhere to her shtick of cryokinesis, while Anna adheres to her shtick of being rather plucky and capable of amazing achievements without having any powers. Additionally, Anna having powers may be one superpowered being too many. I don't know that for a fact, but it's a possibility. It's just as well, in my opinion, because as neato as the idea of Anna having heat powers is (I bet the audience would cheer!), it may be too predictable for the directors to go for it. I mean, quite a few people were talking about this possibility while Frozen was still in theaters more than five years ago, and I've seen/heard many even state that when they saw the movie for the first time they expected Anna to get heat powers before the end of the movie (the original movie). That makes this idea awfully predictable! Ah, but it's also a much-loved idea. I think that if the directors chose to go this route, they'd keep it absolutely a secret before Frozen II's release, so hmmm, I guess we can't tell at this point. I still think it's unlikely, though. We'll see. That's the story now, but it's not how I remember things unfolding in real time. Lee and Buck were getting ready to move on to their next potential WDAS project after taking a well-deserved break, but they were told early in 2014 that Frozen suddenly needed a $equel. They were given some time, to be fair, and they used up all of it, denying the whole time that they had any concrete ideas for a sequel. In between they had confirmed that they were trying to come up with concepts for a sequel, but it was difficult for them because they hadn't made the original with a sequel in mind. Then literally days after what would be their last public denial, Bob Iger himself surprisingly announced at a shareholder meeting that the sequel was officially happening. So were Lee and Buck forced, or weren't they? You be the judge. I think they were forced. One way or another, Frozen is just too big (especially in terms of merchandise sales--forget its puny box office revenue) for Di$ney to say no, and Iger is all about franchises and sequels--loves them, which by the way is the polar opposite of how Walt felt about sequels. Supposedly John Lasseter wanted to make another Cars movie anyway, but due to monstrous merchandise sales it was going to happen whether he wanted it or not. Few movie franchises sell merchandise like this one and Frozen do--it's rarer than I think most people realize. Nearly all WDAS and Pixar movies fail to get anywhere close to these, including Toy Story, which is considered really big in this regard, but not on the same level at all (all of those sequels are more about box office revenue). By the way, I'm not trying to hate on Frozen II because it's a sequel or because I consider it forced, as it could turn out to be a great movie despite its less than ideal start. I just can't root for it at the box office because I fear that its success will mean many more sequels for WDAS to make. They still have a very weak track record at the box office with sequels, which has been their saving grace, but now that decades-long run of futility is poised to be shattered by Frozen II, and in my view this is bad for WDAS even if the movie does turn out to be great (it is definitely possible for any entity to become a victim of its own success). Don't get me wrong about sequels, either, as some have turned out to be among my favorite movies, but the decision should be based on criteria other than money. This may seem hopelessly idealistic, but not so long ago, for a guy my age, it was the norm. I get that, but it wasn't hard for me to ignore it if I'd had enough. I still wouldn't hate on a song or its movie just because people who had nothing to do with it went nuts with it. If they're having fun, then that's great. I just don't understand the hatred. People are weird. Or maybe I'm weird. Oh, and how nice of Good Morning America to help overexpose "Let It Go" and Frozen after pretending the movie didn't exist before it was released. They've promoted just about every other major Disney release, but not this sure loser (in their eyes at the time). I suppose it's some twisted form of envy. I don't mean that they're literally envious, but the feelings of hatred come from a similar place psychologically. I don't understand envy, either. I don't think it will happen because songs going insanely viral like "Let It Go" or "My Heart Will Go On" is an exceedingly rare phenomenon (these are the last two so far, and they were 16 years apart). Maybe one song will just because it's from the Frozen franchise, but I don't think so because "Let It Go" and its associated scene were lightning in a bottle combined with zeitgeist of rare potency. No other song from Frozen caught on nearly as much, and the same will probably be true of the songs of Frozen II. If such a viral phenomenon happens again in this case, then there is some crazy kind of kismet involved, and I'd have nothing else to say. One thing I know is that they're not trying for this deliberately (then again, the "Let It Go" phenomenon wasn't deliberate, either). The directors, crew, and cast all realize that they cannot re-create not only the lightning in a bottle of this song, but of the movie as a whole, as well. They can't forcibly make another Frozen with all of those subversive twists going on and have it work out the same way--been there, done that. That's why they're making such a different kind of movie, and that's fine because not all of the "adventures" we experience in real life are all the same, either. The movie does need to impress, however, to live up to expectations, so they've gone with a superhero origin story of sorts with a more grandly epic rather than intimately epic feel. Rather than pander, they're taking the story where they think it needs to go, and I hope they've managed to keep their word on this, and that this time there will be no crazy-popular song that distracts from the movie itself.

These are the rules that the Disney Consumer Products (DCP) division use to justify the roster of their Disney Princess™ merchandise licensing franchise. A lot of people consider this more broadly "official" but I don't see why. The true underlying rule is whichever set of characters can be most effectively marketed as a group in order to maximize merchandise sales. There is no higher purpose that people seem to speak of, and this has nothing to do with WDAS, the creators of all but one of the characters. By the way, Aurora, who is on the roster, violates the fourth rule because her movie, Sleeping Beauty, lost money at the box office during its initial release, and likewise Tiana violates the same rule because her movie, The Princess and the Frog, came in well below expectations--so much so that Disney gave up on hand-drawn animated features altogether as a result. Then there is Merida, who is a creation of Pixar, unlike all of the other characters, who were created by WDAS. Is she really a Disney princess? Are Pixar animated features therefore Disney animated features? I don't think so, and of course this weird situation is made fun of by WDAS in Ralph Breaks the Internet. There are notable exclusions, as well, such as Vanellope, Elsa, Anna, and Moana, all of whom completely meet the above stated criteria (well, except for Vanellope being human, perhaps, but it's arguable). I'm sure DCP have their reasons, such as the Frozen™ franchise being so huge on its own, but they're not reflected in the rules because like I said it's really about maximizing merchandise sales, and they haven't been able to think of an excuse yet. Note that WDAS chose to include all four because obviously Vanellope would be there and it would just seem too weird for the other three to be missing. See how useless DCP's rules are? Who are they to tell us whom to consider a Disney princess anyway? They're merchandise peddlers, not the creators of these characters. What about Aurora and Tiana, though? Hercules was a bigger hit than The Princess and the Frog. DCP just didn't consider Meg marketable, perhaps for her stylization and other traits (too many European princesses?) that have nothing to do with their rules, and the same is very likely true of Vanellope. This is all the more reason not to take DCP's franchise and its supposed rules seriously. It's really simpler than that, as I stated in a previous post--forget merchandise and DCP, a Disney princess is a princess character created by WDAS. Nicely put, and I agree.

I'm not a girl (not that it's relevant), and you're the one who brought up gender. If that's what you consider reasoning, then indeed we are done. The Disney princesses did squat for Ralph Breaks the Internet, which implies there are limits to their appeal when mashed together. And here we have people thinking a whole movie of this could challenge Avatar at the box office--that's what is truly laughable. You can't do that just with little girls who get their parents to buy a ton of merchandise for them--you need broader appeal than that.

Nevertheless, many fans fully expected a sizable boost to the movie from these scenes, and were proven wrong, as I think they might well be for a full Disney princess crossover movie, as well. You are right that these are not exactly the same thing, but another aspect is fan expectations versus reality, and from this point of view I'm not convinced that fans know what the public want. Maybe the public would respond differently, but maybe not, and this example is the only evidence we have to go on. By the way, I was one of those fans referenced above, and I'm trying to learn from my mistakes.

So everything female sells, no matter what? Like, for example, the female Ghostbusters, I suppose? I based what I said on the fact that contrary to the expectations of many fans, those well publicized and hyped Disney princess scenes clearly did not give Ralph Breaks the Internet a major boost at the box office--not even on OW. What are you going to tell me next, that the WNBA must be more popular than the NBA because the players are female?

Here is mine: 1. Frozen 2. Tangled 3. Wreck-It Ralph 4. The Princess and the Frog 5. Big Hero 6 6. Zootopia 7. Bolt 8. Moana 9. Ralph Breaks the Internet Frozen is, for me, the Beauty and the Beast of the current Disney Revival era--the big standout of its era. For the public, however, it may be more like The Lion King from the Disney Renaissance era, but I'm not real fond of The Lion King.