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