Thoughts on Frozen?

I really enjoyed it. The opening scenes were especially lovely to look at. The lights on the ice and bright colouring made it eye candy. I adore Beauty and the Beast too, but I don't think Frozen will replace it as my favourite Disney film as I like the songs in that a bit more. Also, nostalgia is unavoidable. I appreciated the twist on "true love". I had a feeling that it was coming and had my fingers crossed that they would go down that road. I'm glad that they did. I just wish that the character body shapes for women would become more diverse, but I can't expect miracles.

The beginning was a little bit too close to Tangled. When Anna is running around singing about the castle opening, it was like watching Rapunzel.

Animation was outstanding throughout - especially at the end.

I think they lost their way a bit - it seems that they originally intended Elsa to be an out and out bad guy, then changed her to being a victim; but decided to market the film so that it appeared for all intents and purposes to be a high-budget version of Tinkerbell & the Secret of the Wings, complete with all the shorts. I think they possibly had a greater role for the snowman, but cut it.

Whilst it was a good film, I did get the feeling that they'd just thrown together Tinkerbell, Tangled, Sofia the First and Beauty and the Beast; and churned it up.

I absolutely agree on the Tangled point. I was afraid this was going to be 'Tangled on ice', and Anna and Rapunzel do share a few too many character traits, but I think Frozen was able to carve out its own image.

I think making Elsa more of a victim than a villain was, while not especially close to the original tale, a step in the right direction. Often the world is not so convenient as to have clear-cut 'good guys' and 'bad guys', and having a 'good' character do essentially 'bad' things can provide the youngest members of the audience with some questions about what it means to be 'good' or 'bad'.

I've never seen any of the Tinkerbell films and have no desire to, so I'll have to take your word for it on the marketing front. I also think less snowman = better. They managed to keep him just in the right side of annoying, and I think any more out of him would have tipped the balance right over into 'good-God-he's-driving-me-insane' territory.

I would have liked the film to have taken itself just a bit more seriously, incorporating less of the DreamWorks-y humour of Tangled and more of the maturity of BatB.

All you need to know about TinkerbellATSOTW is that because of a musunderstood relationship and overprotectiveness one of the characters unintentionally causes winter to take over the land and amidst a lot of hijinks in the snow the main protagonist ultimately makes the ultimate sacrifice to right things. Sound familiar?

my thoughts: it's a bloody kids cartoon, probably ****. wontwatch/10

i really liked it, i thought it was quite tense but with really interesting characters. Some of the things they do are incredibly stupid but on the whole it was great with some shocking and scary moments.
Oh wait, that frozen?

best disney film in a while tbh

There's a big difference between an episode of SpongeBob SquarePants and a full-length motion picture that just happens to be in animated form.

yeah and what exactly is the difference lmao

About $600,000,000 for starters.

those that make it any different from a cartoon?

It's as valid a medium as any other. Aren't South Park and Ren & Stimpy only possible through animation?

yeah and what exactly is the different lmao

An episode of SB takes very little time to make, is aimed squarely at prepubescent children (though can and does have an audience beyond that), and features the same cast of characters (in general) in every episode. An animated feature takes between two and four years to complete, goes through a much longer process of storyboarding, scriptwriting, musical composition and marketing, and aims to appeal to a much wider variety of people. Just because most of these people are presumed to be children doesn't mean they all are. Think about how many Disney, Pixar, DreamWorks, Blue Sky, Illumination and Studio Ghibli films exist. There will be, at the very least, one in there that is liked by people older than 10. Hell, even SB has a bit of a cult following among some grown men and women.

Also, animated films are respected as art pieces. Beauty and the Beast and Up were both nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars! WALL-E was named Best Movie of the 2000s by Time magazine! And Frozen currently holds an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes! It's not just Disney and Pixar though - Studio Ghibli, creators of such classics as Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle and Princess Mononoke, is the absolute critical darling of the animation world. Their films are praised for maturity, artistic merit, and timelessness.

I'm not saying that any of these things can't be present in short-form animation. Far from it. Watch any of the Pixar shorts, the Wallace and Gromit shorts, the film 'The Snowman', or this little gem from Disney called 'The Little Match Girl':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSzQBaWq0Q . But guess what? These aren't classed as 'kids' cartoons' either! Hell, I know a lot of people who won't even show The Snowman to little kids.

Do I hate children's cartoons? No. Will I actively choose to watch Looney Tunes or Phineas and Ferb if they're on TV? Of course. We all need a laugh. Do I think that there aren't animated films aimed solely at the youngest of children, with nothing to offer besides that? Absolutely. But do I think that excellent animated films like WALL-E or Frozen deserve to be lumped into the 'children's' category, thereby discouraging adults to see them? No way.