I've seen this movie 500 times at least (young daughters/nieces).
The first mistake made here is, Disney plots are their own genre, and have been for many years. This plot does break some Disney tropes, but if you look closely, all the beats are there still. As a father and uncle, I appreciate this movie that is less male-centric.
There is a lot of subtly in certain places-- the song between Anna and Hans, "Love is an Open Door" -- while the trap set is abhorrent-- if you understand the lyrics, these characters are not talking about "love", they are talking about second order effects of running from their (psychological) problems. In the song, nobody says the only thing that someone should say, "I love you because you are you." Rather, the song is purposefully shallow, "This is how you make me feel, about me."
Moving on...
The Trolls are equivalent to the "prophecy" trope we see in so much bad entertainment nowadays. They essentially lay out the entire movie for you. This is frighteningly common but one could argue in a movie for children it might be good to let them know whats going on. The Trolls just tell us the prophecy in an amusing manner, instead of being some boring scroll that was found or exposition that was told to us. They get a silly musical number, and honestly why are you watching a Disney movie if you didn't want a silly musical number by cute anthropomorphic, marketable things?
The Trolls advice is indeed baffling... but the motivation to hide Elsa's powers are very well established-- magic is feared and punishable by death, and its even playful use directly harmed Anna. You could probably overlay real world problem here as a metaphor... The fact that the article misses this obvious point makes me wonder about the authenticity of the authors intent at all.
The Trolls are a plot device in a movie that, was overall pretty-ok. They're not evil, they're just an escalator that moves the plot along.
I like that the movie deviated slightly from Disney-standard plots. I don't want my kiddo to think a man needs to save her... we have a rule around here, "She can have as many Barbies as chemistry sets."
Overall, it was a decent film. Fantastic movie, fantastic animation, and an "ok" plot. :-)
Frozen 2 was more... wonderful and silly. I liked the film, the set piece at the denouement was wonderful, but we have to explore that Anna is obviously the spirit of fire, which wasn't broached.
I don't think this analysis was meant to be taken completely seriously. At least, I read it as more of a tongue-in-cheek "This plot is frustratingly incoherent, how can we reinterpret it to make more sense?"
> Frozen 2 was more... wonderful and silly.
I fully agree with you there (although my family is split 50-50 on the question ;-) ). As I wrote below, Frozen 2 has a lot more depth. Its whole theme of growing up is handled in a beautiful and mature (un-Disney-like) manner, with a lot of points I felt I could relate to. Not introducing any new infatuations left the script writers a lot more space to explore friendships, sibling relationships, and more "serious" romantic relationships; all to great effect. At the same time, you still have Olaf being Olaf, Elsa singing her songs, and some stunning landscape animations...
> I don't want my kiddo to think a man needs to save her
yes, but I think it's teaching this the wrong way. Here is a quote from Hiyao Miyazaki, who is famous for having female leads in animated films.
> "That song ‘Let it Go’ is popular now. It’s all about being yourself. But that’s terrible — self-satisfied people are boring. We have to push hard and surpass ourselves."
I think it's right, instead of an IDGAF attitude, it's better to highlight hard work.
> I don't want my kiddo to think a man needs to save her...
I've also seen frozen more times than I'd like to admit and have to disagree with this conclusion. Anna would've died multiple times if Kristoff wasn't around.
Frozen 2, in my opinion, takes a calculated risk in world building for a young audience. They literally force the characters into a larger world to learn new cultures and how these natural forces effect the larger world. Ahtohallan is a giant abstract metaphor for self improvement, confidence, and self actualization. Again, it's in the lyrics of the song.
I'm all for these nuanced layers of messaging that tweak the standard tropes.
Having listened to the b-side of the Frozen soundtrack a few too many times where the original composers talk about earlier versions of the plot that were changed. Such as increased conflict between Anna & Elsa where Anna wanted Elsa to go back to suppressing her powers and a kid's pageant about a curse of ever lasting winter and sword sacrifice let me just say that I think the original plot would have been more interesting. In addition the original Elsa sketches were much more frightening. So I think Elsa is actually the true villain grappling with her powers and alienation from society and the Hans thing is just a bad plot point.
Well, it’s very loosely based on the Hans Christian Anderson story about an evil Ice Queen, so it makes sense that the early iterations had a fairly sinister Elsa.
According to Wikipedia:
> The 2013 Walt Disney Animation Studios film Frozen was inspired by "The Snow Queen", and closely followed the original Andersen story early in the film's development.
Exactly - it’s an Elsa story and the villains are just “triggers” in Elsa’s story. She’s a classic “redeemed villain” arc - just with the story focusing on her.
A meta comment. When I read this article, I don't learn anything at all about Frozen. I do get some insight about how we can, or even like, to rationalize ideas (vs. reasoning about them). In this context it's harmless and maybe entertaining.
Where rationalizing becomes a problem is when you rationalize what is real; to many rationalizing is in appearance not so far from reasoning that it's easy to confuse the two if you take too much for granted or assume too much trust in a speaker. Not always easy for even the most rational amongst us to differentiate. Failing to be conscious of this one fact, in my opinion, leads to many bad outcomes like believing in conspiracies, ignoring uncomfortable challenges to our beliefs, and otherwise pollutes the marketplace of ideas.
I guess the points of the comment are to urge you to be always mindful of the distinction between rationalizing and reasoning and to always vigilant to the point of self-examination when the distinction may really matter.
A shame it’s down, because the article mostly points out how strange and off Frozen is as a movie compared to Disney’s more archetypical offerings of fairie tells and princesses that they’re known for. It has a tone where it’s trying to make sense of what’s actually a pretty confusing and bad plot line.
Yes, it's an interesting take, but I'm afraid that plot is beyond redemption :D
Frozen is a great movie for its characters, its world animation, and of course its songs. But the betrayal at the end just makes zero sense (and might arguably rank as the greatest Disney plot fail of all times?).
I actually thought Frozen 2 was a much better movie - one of the rare cases of a sequel being better. Same characters, same animation, same quality songs; but an unusual plotline with well-executed twists and a much greater "depth" to it than normal Disney movies.
> There is a glaring problem with his plan. His plan involves gaining power to the throne by marrying and murdering the rightful heir. However, monarchies determine who rule based on blood relatives. On the Norwegian royal court website family tree, the only people eligible for the crown were direct descendants. If both sisters die, then the heir to the throne is most likely a distant cousin way before Prince Hans could claim the throne.
This person is overthinking this Disney movie more than a little bit.
Norway also didn't exist as an independent kingdom until 1905 (instead being ruled by the king of Sweden) so using the current rules of succession don't make much sense. Actually if the royal family in one of the Scandinavian countries died out, it would be more than likely a king or prince from another Scandinavian country that's next in line for succession (like Prince Carl of Denmark became the Norwegian king Haakon VII in 1905), so pretty much what Hans was planning.
Not only that, but in the movie when Hans tells everyone that Anna was dead but they had time to say their vows they seemed to accept his claim without questioning right of succession.
The troll theory presented is pretty fun, and after 100+ viewings I'm all for new ways of looking at the movie, but building it off a real-world fact that is barely relevant and easily explained away is tenuous.
The author makes some interesting points, and I like the idea of "a Disney song never lies to the audience". But I don't agree with their statement here:
> “Love is an Open Door” is a love ballad between Anna and Hans where they reveal their love and romantic chemistry for one another. This musical number exists as a genuine love song that is never re-contextualized later to fit an alternate meaning. Hans reveals that he wants to fit in and find his place, and that Anna is what gives him purpose. There are no hints or double meanings to grab onto in the lyrics. If these songs reveal the true intentions of these characters, all of Hans’ feelings are genuine.
Specifically "no hints or double meanings to grab onto in the lyrics". This is one of the exchanges in the song:
Hans: "I mean it's crazy"
Anna: "What?"
Hans: "We finish each other's--"
Anna: "Sandwiches!"
Hans: "That's what I was gonna say!"
My question is, was Hans telling the truth here? Was he actually going to say "sandwiches?" Or was he lobbing a softball for her to finish, and she said something unexpected, and he pretended that was what he wanted to say? Because it really doesn't feel genuine on his part. I think he wanted her to say "sentences" because of course that's how you finish that sentence. He's trying to build rapport, and rather than responding genuinely to what she said, he lied about it.
So no, I don't think "Love is an Open Door" is a love ballad. I think it's Hans trying to manipulate Anna's feelings. It's him leaning into what Anna was looking for, which was to be seen and accepted instead of ignored and pushed away.
I'm honestly baffled that anyone sees this any other way. It didn't even occur to me as a possibility. The whole betrayal was not just telegraphed, it was directly shown in every aspect of how Hans interacted with Anna.
Like other middle-aged men with young daughters, I have seen this movie probably 50 times now. It’s a great movie with a touching story and a clever plot, but the analysis is wrong and convoluted. The trolls were a plot device, plain and simple. Assigning further meaning to their role is pure speculation.
I just read the article to my 4 year ar old daughter and asked her, so what do you think, this article says the trolls are bad. "Do you think they were bad or good?"
"well in the movie they were good, they only helped people and played"
I think the trolls were bad and I felt hans significant character shift is better explained by troll magic than bad story telling.
I've had a long running pet theory that while the trolls aren't the villains per se, they do want to have Kristoff hooked up because he's part of their family.
This part of the song is particularly telling:
///
So she's a bit of a fixer-upper, that's a minor thing
Her quote 'engagement' is a flex arrangement, and by the way I don't see no ring!
So she's a bit of a fixer-upper, Her brain's a bit betwixt
Get the fiancé out of the way and the whole thing will be fixed
///
With that said it doesn't quite jive with Hans' betrayal (you could argue the Trolls made him do it but there's no support for that claim). But I think there was a potential to find out that the Trolls were manipulating things behind the scenes to get Kristoff and Anna together.
The major flaw in this article's analysis is that in the opening scene with the trolls, the Papa troll tells Elsa to use her powers wisely and not give into fear, etc. It's Elsa own father who instills the fear.
I thought this article's theory might help explain the Hans weirdness, but now I'm just more convinced the plot is a mess.
Some of the comments here are unintentionally hilarious. The original article is a pretty good attempt at creating an alternate interpretation of the story (akin to, say, Grand Unified Pixar or Darth Jar-Jar). This is its own genre and some such reinterpretations are more successful than others and all will likely fall short insofar as they attempt to overlay an interpretation on a story that was not intended by the authors and necessarily are running contrary to authorial intent, with narratives that are richer in content and ambiguity being the most successful in allowing for this sort of reinterpretation (and that's leaving out intentionally ambiguous narratives like Total Recall).
What about the role of the parents? (the king and queen?)
IMO they handle Elsa's powers in the worst way possible. The trolls sublty hint at what not to do: "fear is the worse you can do"; then they do exactly that. She's taught to deny and hide everything by her parents. So when they tragically die, she just keeps on the same self-repression path until it gets real bad.
It's clear that they don't know how to handle her powers and are doing the best they can, albeit yes, it was probably the worst way to handle it. They were scared that someone would get hurt by her powers (check) and that, if discovered, she would be deemed a monster (check).
Furthermore, the troll king's advice was that Anna could not know about her powers or the damage from being struck in the head would return. So their only choice was to isolate the two sisters from one another.
There was nothing intentionally villainous with the parents.
I've had the trolls pegged as evil since the first viewing for one specific reason: "Only an act of true love can thaw a frozen heart".
That was what sent Anna off to find Hans, but also the key for Elsa.
Love is at the heart of her control of her powers, not fear. The trolls knew, but instead of teaching her this and helping her learn how to control her powers, they taught her to fear them.
It's pretty clear the real villains are the king and queen, their complete lack of accountability to their kingdom and their practically grown daughters is mind boggling.
Also, as someone pointed out on Reddit, Hans may have put Elsa in those power-sapping handcuffs in the castle prison,but he sure didn't build them.
Her parents were totally willing to Bertha Mason her if things went south.
Another alternative look at the Frozen story is in Disney's Twisted Tales version
( https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Conceal,_Don%27t_Feel_(A_Twis... ) which shows an alternative way that the parents could have dealt with the situation. Still not ideal, but better that the canon version in terms of the mental impacts on various characters!
I read an interview where the screenwriter said Hans is a sociopath who mirrors people, and the screenwriter said mirroring people's body language is something she does herself in real life!
Startup idea: Create a winter cloud that floats above your head in summer to keep you cool (or cold, or even frozen). Would be a blat to have one of these at a beach resort.
[+] [-] oceanghost|5 years ago|reply
The first mistake made here is, Disney plots are their own genre, and have been for many years. This plot does break some Disney tropes, but if you look closely, all the beats are there still. As a father and uncle, I appreciate this movie that is less male-centric.
There is a lot of subtly in certain places-- the song between Anna and Hans, "Love is an Open Door" -- while the trap set is abhorrent-- if you understand the lyrics, these characters are not talking about "love", they are talking about second order effects of running from their (psychological) problems. In the song, nobody says the only thing that someone should say, "I love you because you are you." Rather, the song is purposefully shallow, "This is how you make me feel, about me."
Moving on...
The Trolls are equivalent to the "prophecy" trope we see in so much bad entertainment nowadays. They essentially lay out the entire movie for you. This is frighteningly common but one could argue in a movie for children it might be good to let them know whats going on. The Trolls just tell us the prophecy in an amusing manner, instead of being some boring scroll that was found or exposition that was told to us. They get a silly musical number, and honestly why are you watching a Disney movie if you didn't want a silly musical number by cute anthropomorphic, marketable things?
The Trolls advice is indeed baffling... but the motivation to hide Elsa's powers are very well established-- magic is feared and punishable by death, and its even playful use directly harmed Anna. You could probably overlay real world problem here as a metaphor... The fact that the article misses this obvious point makes me wonder about the authenticity of the authors intent at all.
The Trolls are a plot device in a movie that, was overall pretty-ok. They're not evil, they're just an escalator that moves the plot along.
I like that the movie deviated slightly from Disney-standard plots. I don't want my kiddo to think a man needs to save her... we have a rule around here, "She can have as many Barbies as chemistry sets."
Overall, it was a decent film. Fantastic movie, fantastic animation, and an "ok" plot. :-)
Frozen 2 was more... wonderful and silly. I liked the film, the set piece at the denouement was wonderful, but we have to explore that Anna is obviously the spirit of fire, which wasn't broached.
[+] [-] veddox|5 years ago|reply
> Frozen 2 was more... wonderful and silly.
I fully agree with you there (although my family is split 50-50 on the question ;-) ). As I wrote below, Frozen 2 has a lot more depth. Its whole theme of growing up is handled in a beautiful and mature (un-Disney-like) manner, with a lot of points I felt I could relate to. Not introducing any new infatuations left the script writers a lot more space to explore friendships, sibling relationships, and more "serious" romantic relationships; all to great effect. At the same time, you still have Olaf being Olaf, Elsa singing her songs, and some stunning landscape animations...
[+] [-] devmunchies|5 years ago|reply
yes, but I think it's teaching this the wrong way. Here is a quote from Hiyao Miyazaki, who is famous for having female leads in animated films.
> "That song ‘Let it Go’ is popular now. It’s all about being yourself. But that’s terrible — self-satisfied people are boring. We have to push hard and surpass ourselves."
I think it's right, instead of an IDGAF attitude, it's better to highlight hard work.
[+] [-] vb6sp6|5 years ago|reply
I've also seen frozen more times than I'd like to admit and have to disagree with this conclusion. Anna would've died multiple times if Kristoff wasn't around.
[+] [-] ericcholis|5 years ago|reply
I'm all for these nuanced layers of messaging that tweak the standard tropes.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lupire|5 years ago|reply
Why? A chemistry set has 50 pieces. A barbie is 1.
[+] [-] robotbikes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wodenokoto|5 years ago|reply
According to Wikipedia:
> The 2013 Walt Disney Animation Studios film Frozen was inspired by "The Snow Queen", and closely followed the original Andersen story early in the film's development.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snow_Queen
[+] [-] bombcar|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbuttgereit|5 years ago|reply
Where rationalizing becomes a problem is when you rationalize what is real; to many rationalizing is in appearance not so far from reasoning that it's easy to confuse the two if you take too much for granted or assume too much trust in a speaker. Not always easy for even the most rational amongst us to differentiate. Failing to be conscious of this one fact, in my opinion, leads to many bad outcomes like believing in conspiracies, ignoring uncomfortable challenges to our beliefs, and otherwise pollutes the marketplace of ideas.
I guess the points of the comment are to urge you to be always mindful of the distinction between rationalizing and reasoning and to always vigilant to the point of self-examination when the distinction may really matter.
[+] [-] wincy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veddox|5 years ago|reply
Frozen is a great movie for its characters, its world animation, and of course its songs. But the betrayal at the end just makes zero sense (and might arguably rank as the greatest Disney plot fail of all times?).
I actually thought Frozen 2 was a much better movie - one of the rare cases of a sequel being better. Same characters, same animation, same quality songs; but an unusual plotline with well-executed twists and a much greater "depth" to it than normal Disney movies.
[+] [-] TulliusCicero|5 years ago|reply
This person is overthinking this Disney movie more than a little bit.
[+] [-] ginko|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cooperadymas|5 years ago|reply
The troll theory presented is pretty fun, and after 100+ viewings I'm all for new ways of looking at the movie, but building it off a real-world fact that is barely relevant and easily explained away is tenuous.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] staticman2|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frereubu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcphage|5 years ago|reply
> “Love is an Open Door” is a love ballad between Anna and Hans where they reveal their love and romantic chemistry for one another. This musical number exists as a genuine love song that is never re-contextualized later to fit an alternate meaning. Hans reveals that he wants to fit in and find his place, and that Anna is what gives him purpose. There are no hints or double meanings to grab onto in the lyrics. If these songs reveal the true intentions of these characters, all of Hans’ feelings are genuine.
Specifically "no hints or double meanings to grab onto in the lyrics". This is one of the exchanges in the song:
Hans: "I mean it's crazy"
Anna: "What?"
Hans: "We finish each other's--"
Anna: "Sandwiches!"
Hans: "That's what I was gonna say!"
My question is, was Hans telling the truth here? Was he actually going to say "sandwiches?" Or was he lobbing a softball for her to finish, and she said something unexpected, and he pretended that was what he wanted to say? Because it really doesn't feel genuine on his part. I think he wanted her to say "sentences" because of course that's how you finish that sentence. He's trying to build rapport, and rather than responding genuinely to what she said, he lied about it.
So no, I don't think "Love is an Open Door" is a love ballad. I think it's Hans trying to manipulate Anna's feelings. It's him leaning into what Anna was looking for, which was to be seen and accepted instead of ignored and pushed away.
[+] [-] Malician|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] falcor84|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] temporallobe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foxhop|5 years ago|reply
"well in the movie they were good, they only helped people and played"
I think the trolls were bad and I felt hans significant character shift is better explained by troll magic than bad story telling.
Fun read though!
[+] [-] bentcorner|5 years ago|reply
This part of the song is particularly telling:
///
So she's a bit of a fixer-upper, that's a minor thing
Her quote 'engagement' is a flex arrangement, and by the way I don't see no ring!
So she's a bit of a fixer-upper, Her brain's a bit betwixt
Get the fiancé out of the way and the whole thing will be fixed
///
With that said it doesn't quite jive with Hans' betrayal (you could argue the Trolls made him do it but there's no support for that claim). But I think there was a potential to find out that the Trolls were manipulating things behind the scenes to get Kristoff and Anna together.
[+] [-] gagege|5 years ago|reply
I thought this article's theory might help explain the Hans weirdness, but now I'm just more convinced the plot is a mess.
[+] [-] watwut|5 years ago|reply
It is much more simple and plausible explanation, "they were wrong" then trying to make ma big manipulation.
[+] [-] dhosek|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naringas|5 years ago|reply
IMO they handle Elsa's powers in the worst way possible. The trolls sublty hint at what not to do: "fear is the worse you can do"; then they do exactly that. She's taught to deny and hide everything by her parents. So when they tragically die, she just keeps on the same self-repression path until it gets real bad.
[+] [-] Marazan|5 years ago|reply
They think "Control her powers" means "Lock powers away"
[+] [-] cooperadymas|5 years ago|reply
Furthermore, the troll king's advice was that Anna could not know about her powers or the damage from being struck in the head would return. So their only choice was to isolate the two sisters from one another.
There was nothing intentionally villainous with the parents.
[+] [-] smileysteve|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huffmsa|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Twirrim|5 years ago|reply
That was what sent Anna off to find Hans, but also the key for Elsa.
Love is at the heart of her control of her powers, not fear. The trolls knew, but instead of teaching her this and helping her learn how to control her powers, they taught her to fear them.
[+] [-] huffmsa|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kthejoker2|5 years ago|reply
Also, as someone pointed out on Reddit, Hans may have put Elsa in those power-sapping handcuffs in the castle prison,but he sure didn't build them.
Her parents were totally willing to Bertha Mason her if things went south.
[+] [-] robocat|5 years ago|reply
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
[+] [-] mpettitt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Toutouxc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smileysteve|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mac01021|5 years ago|reply
It reminds me of this other,10-year-old post about Tom Bombadil from the Lord of the Rings: https://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html
[+] [-] staticman2|5 years ago|reply
I think the article is "trolling".
[+] [-] jansan|5 years ago|reply