Frozen II | Nov 22 2019 | 2nd Most Profitable Movie of 2019. Disney does it again! | Documentary series coming to D+ June 26

[catlover]

5 hours ago, Royce said:

Tangled is such an underrated Disney classic (yes, it's a classic)

 

This song is also underrated

 

 

Yesss, the song is sooo underrated and that I See the Light scene was one the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen, especially in 3D. 

[Legion Again]

Now you guys have gotten me wanting to rewatch a bunch of WDAS stuff, lol.

[Melvin Frohike]

On 6/13/2019 at 3:59 AM, FrozenUnicorn said:

Fun fact, a few years ago before they planned to make Frozen 2 Jennifer Lee did reveal why Elsa was given powers—she was born during a planetary alignment on the winter solstice. I'm not sure if they'll retcon it in the sequel, but that was the explanation.

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.
 

On 6/13/2019 at 3:59 AM, FrozenUnicorn said:

That's also one reason why I think Anna is going to get powers in the sequel (well, that and the fact that Anna has leaves swirling around her in a sticker sheet that was released), because she was born on the summer solstice.

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.

 

On 6/13/2019 at 3:59 AM, FrozenUnicorn said:

In this case, they weren't forced to. Jennifer Lee said initially they weren't going to make a sequel, but her and Chris Buck were discussing Frozen one day, realized "Wait a minute, that's the avenue we haven't explored yet" and then got the idea for the sequel.

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.
 

On 6/13/2019 at 3:59 AM, FrozenUnicorn said:

I hate forced sequels as well, but by the sound of it this sequel came out through them just realizing there was more they wanted to tell with these characters, rather than Disney forcefully mandating it as was probably the case for Cars 2 and such.

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.

 

On 6/13/2019 at 3:59 AM, FrozenUnicorn said:

The reason LiG drove so many people crazy is because it was overplayed to many people. It was on the radio, there were covers, people were singing it everywhere, heck, Good Morning America even had a live Let It Go sing-along.

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).

 

On 6/13/2019 at 3:59 AM, FrozenUnicorn said:

People for some baffling reason tend to hate on things just because they're popular (I guess they think it makes them "cool" or something). They didn't have a problem with "Let It Go" as a song, just that it was overplayed, similar to My Heart Will Go On reportedly was with Titanic.

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.

 

On 6/13/2019 at 3:59 AM, FrozenUnicorn said:

Into the Unknown or some other song in the movie (presumably whichever one they release on Youtube before the film releases like with LiG if it's a good enough song) will probably get backlash the same way if/when it gets overplayed as well.

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.

[cannastop]

5 hours ago, cannastop said:

1. Zootopia
2. Frozen
3. Princess and the Frog
4. Bolt
5. Moana
6. Big Hero 6
7. Wreck it Ralph
8. Meet the Robinsons

Haven't seen the others.

lol forgot Ralph Breaks the Internet existed. That might be last place.

[cannastop]

1 hour ago, catlover said:

Yesss, the song is sooo underrated and that I See the Light scene was one the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen, especially in 3D. 

I See the Light sounds like light Christian rock.

[AniNate]

Frozen fever was pretty obnoxious back then. You can call it envy or whatever, but I think people have a right to be annoyed by something when it becomes such an inescapable part of pop culture and its overenthused fans respond to pleas to take it down a notch with a dismissive "Sorry we're having fun". People want variety in their life and having to hear the same song over and over again is grating, regardless of how good it is.

 

It's also hard for me to buy that this sequel was entirely creative driven. WDA only made two sequels in their 70+ year history before WIR2, and now they've made two in two years. I'm sure Buck and Lee can make a good story out of it, but let's not pretend this wasn't influenced significantly by the ravenous fan demands.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2019 by tribefan695

[MovieMan89]

Frozen loonies were completely insufferable back in the day. I'm honestly convinced they're the reason I didn't like the film much back then and have only begun to appreciate it more in recent years upon rewatch. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by MovieMan89

[YM!]

Personally I never was bothered by the Frozen stans nor was the music annoying (forgettable outside of Let It Go and The Frist Time In Forever), and the fact it’s a good movie, the film doesn’t do it for me. Elsa is a very strong character and probably one of my favorite Disney Princesses and Olaf provides decent relief but Anna and Kristoff where both really bland. The former is probably the weakest of the modern day Disney Princesses and to be honest arc wise both Tiana and Rapunzel beat her in spades.

[Spidey Freak]

Anna >> Rapunzel

 

Heck, Rapunzel is just a rehash of Ariel without the lover girl angle (well, that too happens in the second half and like Ariel, Rapunzel needs to be rescued by her male hero in the final act too). 

[IronJimbo]

gonna make a billie UH

[YM!]

30 minutes ago, Spidey Freak said:

Anna >> Rapunzel

 

Heck, Rapunzel is just a rehash of Ariel without the lover girl angle (well, that too happens in the second half and like Ariel, Rapunzel needs to be rescued by her male hero in the final act too). 

One can argue the same about Anna.

 

16 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

gonna make a billie UH

Obviously.

[Spidey Freak]

1 minute ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

One can argue the same about Anna.

No. Anna's story is a deconstruction of the classic Disney Princess tropes and it is weightier than Enchanted which tried the same thing but in a more light-hearted manner.

[IronJimbo]

25 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

One can argue the same about Anna.

 

Obviously.

gonna make 2 billie UH!

[cannastop]

8 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

Frozen fever was pretty obnoxious back then. You can call it envy or whatever, but I think people have a right to be annoyed by something when it becomes such an inescapable part of pop culture and its overenthused fans respond to pleas to take it down a notch with a dismissive "Sorry we're having fun". People want variety in their life and having to hear the same song over and over again is grating, regardless of how good it is.

 

It's also hard for me to buy that this sequel was entirely creative driven. WDA only made two sequels in their 70+ year history before WIR2, and now they've made two in two years. I'm sure Buck and Lee can make a good story out of it, but let's not pretend this wasn't influenced significantly by the ravenous fan demands.

 

 

[cannastop]

3 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Frozen loonies were completely insufferable back in the day. I'm honestly convinced they're the reason I didn't like the film much back then and have only begun to appreciate it more in recent years upon rewatch. 

More than Zootopia loonies?

[YM!]

21 minutes ago, cannastop said:

More than Zootopia loonies?

Aren’t you the only one?

[Melvin Frohike]

9 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

Frozen fever was pretty obnoxious back then. You can call it envy or whatever,

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.

 

Quote

but I think people have a right to be annoyed by something when it becomes such an inescapable part of pop culture and its overenthused fans respond to pleas to take it down a notch with a dismissive "Sorry we're having fun". People want variety in their life and having to hear the same song over and over again is grating, regardless of how good it is.

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.
 

Quote

It's also hard for me to buy that this sequel was entirely creative driven.

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).
 

Quote

WDA only made two sequels in their 70+ year history before WIR2, and now they've made two in two years. I'm sure Buck and Lee can make a good story out of it, but let's not pretend this wasn't influenced significantly by the ravenous fan demands.

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.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Melvin Frohike

[TalismanRing]

2 hours ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Personally I never was bothered by the Frozen stans nor was the music annoying (forgettable outside of Let It Go and The Frist Time In Forever), and the fact it’s a good movie, the film doesn’t do it for me. Elsa is a very strong character and probably one of my favorite Disney Princesses and Olaf provides decent relief but Anna and Kristoff where both really bland. The former is probably the weakest of the modern day Disney Princesses and to be honest arc wise both Tiana and Rapunzel beat her in spades.

I found Elsa to be a strong concept  - great power feared and bound then unbound but a weak character.  She makes a nice ice home (with seemingly nothing of sustenance within miles) and has a key anthem but otherwise she's passive.  She hides, runs away and hides  some more until Anna seeks her out and pushes the issue - hard.    Anna is the one that takes risks, yes she makes mistakes but she pursues and risks her life.  In the end Elsa come through for her sister and people but it's at almost the last moment.

 
Neither though are among the top tier female protagonists in WDAS.  They aren't even the best sisters - that's Lilo and Nani.

[YM!]

2 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

I found Elsa to be a strong concept  - great power feared and bound then unbound but a weak character.  She makes a nice ice home (with seemingly nothing of sustenance within miles) and has a key anthem but otherwise she's passive.  She hides, runs away and hides  some more until Anna seeks her out and pushes the issue - hard.    Anna is the one that takes risks, yes she makes mistakes but she pursues and risks her life.  In the end Elsa come through for her sister and people but it's at almost the last moment.

 
Neither though are among the top tier female protagonists in WDAS.  They aren't even the best sisters - that's Lilo and Nani.

Agreed. I think Menzel is what does it for me.

[Spidey Freak]

4 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

Frozen loonies were completely insufferable back in the day. I'm honestly convinced they're the reason I didn't like the film much back then

LMAO this revisionist history when you were throwing shade at the movie since Week 1 of its release when it was still far from becoming a phenom and there were barely any stans.

 

Receipts: 

Quote

CS has proved useless this year, so I really would be careful putting any stock in that these days. I highly doubt boys liked this movie as much as Tangled. Families stick together more during a holiday weekend, but now that Thanksgiving's over I wouldn't be surprised if this skews way more female than Tangled starting this week, and therefore doesn't hold up as well. Also as I said it opened 25m higher than Tangled over the 5 day. It's only natural it wouldn't have as good of legs with that much bigger of an opening, even IF WOM is as good as Tangled.

Quote

Regardless of what I thought about it, some of you are kidding yourselves if you think most little boys will like this and tell their friends to see it. It's the girliest film Disney has done since Sleeping Beauty. Without Olaf (who doesn't show up till half through), there's literally no young male appeal.

Quote

I have 9 and 10 year old nephews that loathed it. And they think Tangled's hilarious. But really, the whole movie is about a sister/sister relationship, with a dash of very girl oriented romance thrown in. I was literally expecting rainbows to shoot across the sky and unicorns to invade the kingdom during the "Love is an Open Door" number. What are boys supposed to relate to? It's a chick flick through and through. Not that there's anything wrong with that, girls should have movies that appeal just to them same as guys. It just means there's not much there for male appeal. I said I think it's a great movie for its target audience of little girls, but I can't say that I could get very into it as a 23 year old guy.

 

Tangled had way more humor, more action, a male protagonist that fit your typical action hero, less schmaltzy songs/scenes, and a menacing villain to combat any of its girly princess appeal. This movie doesn't have any of that, imo.