Disney's Frozen

[EricJ]

Andersen.

That's him.

Although I don't recall Andersen's "true" Snow Queen being "bad"--She just was. Snowflakes, HC tells us in the story, are really like bees, and so have a queen.
She often gets confused with the White Witch of Narnia (oh, does she ever ), just for giving sled rides to boys, but the story makes it clear that she doesn't have any actual villainous agenda--a flurry here, a killer blizzard there--the Anna-equivalent simply has to rescue her brother before he's lost forever.

So, as for the series....they're going to make her Elsa.

[ShyViolet]

Frozen sequel slated for 2018:

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... vious.html

[eddievalient]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ben]

Obvious this was coming. Iger was actually on Bloomberg last week and verbally confirmed they were looking at ideas for a sequel. His words were that if they could find something that felt like a natural progression there would be a sequel. I actually saw this, heard him say it, and was surprised it wasn't picked up by any major outlets as confirmation that a Frozen 2 was on the cards...

[ShyViolet]

More adventures for Olaf, apparently:

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... chise.html

[eddievalient]

I'm ashamed to call myself a Disney fan.

[Whippet Angel]

Let it go dude, let it go...

[Ben]

Well, now, nothing wrong in an Olaf's Adventures spin off. This is probably either a television or internet show, video game, online app or maybe even a Tangled Ever After styled short, not a theatrical sequel. Walt himself used to spin his characters off into other mediums, including sidekicks in shorts, so that would be nothing new or particularly objectionable.

I wouldn't, actually, be too offended if they even wanted to spin off a DTV series of Olaf films in the Tinker Bell way. But that's what this sounds like...I'd be very surprised and shocked if this was a theatrical continuation...it would be too close to something like Bartok The Magnificent. As a spin off or DTV, fine, but I don't think there's a need to worry *too* much...yet.

[EricJ]

More adventures for Olaf, apparently:

Let's see, I predicted this...how many pages back?

[eddievalient]

Let it go dude, let it go...

Ya know, I'm getting really blanking tired of people saying that. This is not a small thing. No offense intended to anyone here, but when I see great movies like John Carter and The Lone Ranger completely bomb while a blanking piece of blank like this makes a gazillion dollars, that tells me that I'm surrounded by idiots who can't tell the difference between a good film and a poor one. Sure, there are bad films I love (Street Fighter, Howard The Duck, Battleship, The Spirit...), but I have no illusions about what it is I'm watching.

The sad thing is that Disney has had a few movies good enough to warrant a franchise, like Wreck It Ralph, but instead of doing something with those, no, they go with their absolute WORST movie. Seriously, at this point, I fully expect the executives to force changes on whatever films are in production to make them "more like Frozen", never mind how the animators, writers, directors, etc. feel. This whole situation is FUBAR. Disney's dead, and Frozen is the one that killed it. And I will NOT just "let it go". I refuse.

[Whippet Angel]

Sorry, you lost me at The Lone Ranger being a great movie...

[eddievalient]

It was, and I don't know about you, but when I saw it, the whole audience loved it and I saw it with a packed house. If you didn't care for it, fine, but don't even try to tell me that Frozen was the better movie. Even Prince Of Persia was better than that stain on the canon (although in that case, the fact that the guy who invented the game contributed to the film adaptation probably helped).

[Whippet Angel]

And what exactly makes you better qualified to "tell the difference between a good film and a bad one"?

Lol, someone clearly has trouble discerning fact from opinion.

P.S.
It's not nice to call people "idiots" for not having the same taste as you.

[eddievalient]

And what exactly makes you better qualified to "tell the difference between a good film and a bad one"?

Well, I hate to pull the college degree card because I know it makes me sound like an arrogant jerk, but I do just so happen to have a film studies degree and I would say that that makes me just as qualified to judge as any professional film critic. The difference is that for some reason I'll never understand, their opinions get accepted as fact when they're more often than not completely wrong and the ones who actually peg things correctly more often than not get ignored because they disagree with the "majority opinion".

For example, while it is flawed, Green Lantern is nowhere near as bad as the "majority opinion" decided it was and it even got 59 positive reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes. Does any one ever mention that? No. According to most sheeple, If the majority of critics gave it negative reviews, it's a bad film, end of story and anyone who disagrees should be mocked. Likewise, Harold And Kumar Go To White Castle got mostly positive reviews and the few critics who correctly reported that it was a bad movie (and it is extremely bad) were completely ignored.

And that, in essence, is where I have a problem. It seems to me that no matter where I go, people are incapable of thinking for themselves. I have completely lost count of the number of times where someone used the "it's popular so that makes it good" fallacy to defend a bad movie, but when I counter with something like Transformers which got terrible reviews but made lots of money, they end up dismissing me as being obviously wrong for liking it when I'm using the exact same argument that they are. It's enough to make anyone think they're surrounded by morons. Sorry.

By the way, I know GeorgeC doesn't post much anymore, but when he does, his posts are usually very negative but no one ever implies that he's in the wrong (at least not that I've seen). And yet EricJ and I have been getting called out constantly lately. Why the double standard?

[droosan]

FWIW, eddie .. I honestly enjoyed John Carter, The Lone Ranger and Frozen. I don't have an opinion on Prince of Persia or Green Lantern .. since I haven't seen them.

I will say, though, that (IMO) Tangled was a much stronger 'Disney' animated feature -- story-, character- and music-wise -- than Frozen. The fact that Frozen has managed to 'connect' with audiences and enjoy exponential success worldwide hasn't changed that opinion .. but it hasn't elicited any negative feelings on my part, either.

In the end -- even though I'd enjoyed them -- the fact that Disney had to declare both John Carter and The Lone Ranger as net 'losses' was a bad thing for the studio. So, by that measure: despite my own personal opinion that it was 'merely quite good' (and your own opinion that it was something 'less-than' that), surely the fact that Frozen has proved to be an unexpected phenomenal 'hit' can be deemed a good thing for Disney .. in-and-of-itself, if nothing else..

Believe me, if JC or TLR had done Frozen numbers -- Disney definitely would've considered sequels for them .. and probably much sooner than this.

----------------

a couple of additional thoughts:

.. as your own Transformers analogy indicates, box office ≠ quality. It logically follows that 'popularity' is likewise not indicative of 'quality'. Just as the runaway success of a movie like Frozen cannot be 'planned', neither can it necessarily be 'explained'.

A professional film critic's review is no less an 'opinion' than yours, or my own. Reviews are not something which should be considered 'fact', by anyone.

I tend to avoid some of the more 'heated' exchanges here, myself .. but, since you brought up Howard the Duck:

"y'know -- 'hostility' is, like, a psychic boomerang!!"