Disney's newest movie FROZEN, loosely based on The Snow Queen

Frozen II seems to pick up pretty soon after the first one -- I don't remember if there are any references to passage of time, but it seems like a year at most.

They say that it's been 3 years from the events of the first movie (and 6 years from when the parents disappeared). Interesting info you found, thx... I had sometimes wondered about "anachronisms" in the first movie, but didn't think (or care enough) to pin down the actual year.

A quick skim of the Wikipedia article for "Bicycle" seems to confirm my suspicion that the bike Anna rides in the first movie is anachronistic!!

3 years? Kristof really taking his sweet time to propose.

He's got a couple of bugs (or so I hear)

I read something the other day that pinpointed the time period closer to the 1860s, but can't recall where that was.

It was the time of trolls, iirc.

Looks like The Little Mermaid wuz first published in 1837, and then republished in 1849.

Another neat little thing -- Frozen is known to be loosely based on The Snow Queen by Hans Christian Andersen. IIRC, there's a scene where young dad says he is reading "some new Danish author." Hans Christian Andersen had his first commercial successes roughly in the early 1830s. Snow Queen was published in 1844 -- just a couple years after the events of the second film if the first really takes place in 1839.

Oh -- that's the the line that I thought was understood to be referring to "The Little Mermaid." Guess "The Snow Queen" makes more sense, lol

The deluxe version of this soundtrack has a few outtakes, more of which are underwhelming -- with the exception of "I Seek the Truth," an excellent Elsa song that sounds like it was written for the scene where "Show Yourself" ended up. (While the other outtakes are full versions recorded by cast members, this one is just Kristen Anderson-Lopez and a piano.)

*(“more” = “most”)

Lol, this was crazy. Much less free than the original, and I have no idea what kids are going to make of it. Zizek is going to have a lot of fun with it. I'm guessing the writers has read a fair share of Baldwin and Coates, reminded me a bit of Watchmen in that sense.

I’m seeing it again tomorrow (like a boss)!

This movie was really good. Lots of singing. Reminded me a lot like a Broadway musical. I wish the annoying snowman would’ve stayed dead though.

Cool second viewing... I think it’s an even better movie than the original, for a few reasons (and I love the songs).

The first one just feels so oddly effortless. While this one tries very hard. But it does achieve a lot. One moment I just straight up loved was Olaf saying 'the kids are alright :) ' There's so much empathy towards the young audience, whether they be normies or outcasts, and that is kinda rare.

Something that gets me about the movie is how one of its main concerns is the passage of time (which you'd think would be a natural subject for a movie sequel, but usually isn't). It probably affects you in a particular way if you have kid(s) who grew up with the first movie. When Olaf turns to the camera in "Some Things Never Change," and sings, "You all look a little bit older!" -- I get a lump in my throat, no joke.

My wife liked it better than the first one. Talking to my kids, it appears there is no antagonist in it?

frozen is the only animated movie of the last like 20 years that i just cannot get through and i’ve tried probably five times at this point

xp That’s true — no human antagonist, which is interesting (and even the non-human forces creating conflict turn out to be benevolent, once the conflict has been resolved).

(Similar to the first movie, however, a character previously thought to be a “good guy” turns out to be a “bad guy” — this time, it’s an ancestor of our heroes.)

There’s something very effective and satisfying about the whole “spiritual” quest & conflict at the heart of the movie; even though the exact mechanics of it still aren’t fully clear to me, after two viewings.

I said this in the Star Wars thread, but there are some interesting story & theme parallels with The Rise of Skywalker… right down to a centerpiece “heroine crossing a stormy sea” scene. And while I liked them both a lot, this is probably the better movie!

The mechanics of it are kinda abstract, but it does work really well as an allegory of settler colonialism, I found :)

“Into the Unknown” > “Let it go”

no way

My daughter has got into Star Wars recently, which I'm pretty much worn out by in my life but whatever she's super enthusiastic. We were watching the original trilogy the other day and I noticed a snatch of John Williams' score that sounded just like the four note hook from Into the Unknown.

One of my kids was just down in Atlanta for the Junior Theater Festival, where they got to compete with selections from "Frozen" (they won Best Performance for like the 11th time in a row; our middle school has a heck of a theatre program). Anyway, I've seen so many clips of them performing "Let It Go," in rehearsals, with small audiences, to judges, to parents, and ultimately to 6500 people. The woman who plays Elsa on Broadway was there, and she sang it. Later there was a mass sing-a-long and hundreds and hundreds of kids sang it. Now, I haven't seen "Frozen 2," but I've heard "Into the Unknown" a lot, because of my kids. In fact, when they saw "Frozen 2" they came home telling me they knew Disney was hoping it would be the new "Let It Go." But boy is it not, because I've seen "Let It Go" bring people to their feet and so on, and "Into the Unknown" just does not work that way. Part of it may be practical, that it is a less conventional song and harder to belt along with. But as an anthem, "Let It Go" is pretty relentless, imo, whether or not I ever want to hear it again.

Yeah, "Let It Go" is sui generis (and a mad achievement, in both songwriting and performance)... but I'd rather actually hear "Into the Unknown" these days. Sorry, secret siren!

My kid was trying to convince me that "Show Yourself" is actually the real wannabe "Let It Go" of "Frozen 2."

Let it Go is clearly more of a "hit single" but Into the Unknown is more musically interesting

I'm just so impressed by the Anderson-Lopezes and their songwriting chops. They had to have been somewhat psyched out, following up the songs from the first movie -- and yet somehow they upped their game.

I know I mentioned this killer outtake above (and even tried to hype it in the ILM poll)... here's one more post, just so you can't blame me for keeping it from you. Imagine sitting down and writing something like this (and then it doesn't even stay in the movie!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wGaT-QxmwM

"Show Yourself" should have been pushed as the "single" for this movie. It's a real show-stopper and "Into the Unknown" is a little too complex to be absorbed in a single sitting. Also, in 20 years, can you imagine how many expectant moms are going to psyche themselves up for delivery by listening to "Show Yourself"??? It's the impending motherhood anthem!

Also the Kacey Musgraves take on the lullaby is incredible - it reminded me of Dolly Parton singing "Barbara Allen" on Ken Burns' Country Music doc.

Also, yes I have a daughter now.

!!!
but also
<3<3<3

Am I the only one who thinks of Show Yourself as a trans anthem? 'Show yourself / I'm dying to meet you' It always reminds me of my friend who, when I met her, seemed quite shy and withdrawn, and now she posts something that makes me laugh or cry on social media at least once a day. And I have to say that while of course I'm most of all happy for her, I'm also just incredibly happy and lucky to have met her.

It's an anthem for a lot of different situations which is why it's strange it wasn't promoted heavily. Maybe it wasn't finished until late in the production?

Kewl Oscars™ performance of “Into the Unknown” (my daughter immediately made me replay it twice).

I thought this was pretty tedious and incoherent, but at least it looked gorgeous.

The Oscars performance, or the movie itself? (and how are you just seeing either one now?)

Oh, sorry, the movie itself (Oscar performance was fine). The rest of my family had already seen the sequel, but half of them are out of town, so I told my other daughter I would watch it. She warned me that it wasn't that good but was still fun to watch, but I was actually bored for a lot of it. It's often just a couple of people standing in one spot either parsing out what passes for plot or receiving gibberish exposition. Way too much snowman (whose b-story that doesn't pay off is ... getting old?), way too much love interest guy, who spends 70% of the movie attempting to propose, and the other 30% ... literally lost? And the whole driving thing with the dam made absolutely no sense. At the very least, who spends likely several years (and untold money and probably deaths) building a huge, state of the art dam simply as a ruse to lure your enemies (?) into a false sense of complacency? (I think?)

Anyway, it's like they knew all these characters had to come back, knew they each needed a couple of showcases and showstopper/off sequences, knew they had to put more snowman into it, then ran up against the running time and out of room for an actual story.

Next movie should be a back to basics move. Elsa establishes a successful independent (and magical?) artisanal ice cream shop. A benevolent stranger comes into town and offers to buy the shop, letting Elsa spend more time communing with nature (and finally finding a love interest?). Turns out the benevolent stranger is actually a proxy for a huge corporation, who slashes jobs and cuts costs by using inferior ingredients. He soon franchises and expands the ice cream shop, putting all the small ice cream shops out of business .. and ridding the world of magic. It's up to a newly magic-free Elsa and her crew to venture into the Big Cruel City and, enlisting the generosity of the citizens of their innocent, isolated kingdom, buy up shares and stage a takeover, reaffirming their values and bringing back order to the natural world. Then in the end Elsa can get married in Central Park and introduce magical cupcakes to her menu.

They built the dam because they wanted a dam. They just lied about who it was going to benefit. It's a pretty clear example of settler colonialism?

But why did they need the dam?

For that matter, why didn't the spirits just destroy the dam?

I mean, I got the colonial stuff, but there wasn't much of that and it seemed just kind of thrown in.

try to be like water, if you can

Forget memory, I had trouble paying attention as it was happening.

I also didn't love the movie, but it brought my partner to tears. The kids love the music, which I get (outside of the parts when kristoff imitates sven's voice. fuck those parts.)

I was honestly very impressed with the maturity of my younger daughter's reaction. She recognized (and warned me) it wasn't a particularly special movie, but still found a lot to enjoy in it.