Bill1978 wrote: December 25th, 2019, 9:54 pm
Daniel, what you said about Hans was probably the most annoying art of the sequel for me. They had an opportunity but they decided to go the easy path and just keep pushing him into the ground. Very disappointing. But what should I have expected from a movie that left me feeling 'meh'
Basically there WAS no "Princes suck!" empowerment-misandry for Jennifer Lee to exploit in the sequel, and when they ended up working out an entire story that took place away from Arendelle, there was no place for a Hans callback in person to take place.
So, let's just take a quick off-topic moment and resurrect him only long enough to remind us what smart characters our heroines were to dump him...How mature and empowered.
(It's not as bad as the "Punish Ralph for supporting Disney princesses!" tar-and-feathering moment from Wreck-It Ralph 2, but it still leaves an ug-Lee moment on the proceedings.)
I haven’t seen it yet, but when you say "away from Arendelle", would there have been scope to make that "away" Hans' place of origin? That might have been cool...?
Nope--It's not anywhere BUT the forest for about 90% of the movie (so that, [SPOILER], Elsa can have a new job upgrade at the end and be even more godlike and messianic), which means that the only male-bashing Jenny gets to do is link Kristoff up in a subplot with another new lonely, stumbling goofy male who talks to his reindeer and wishes he had a girl to make him better again.
Although, even without Hans, the conflict of the plot can STILL be blamed at the end on some weaselly male authority figure who betrayed everyone by lying his hinder off to the good responsible people who trusted him...And no, not that one, either.
Yeah, and said person dies falling off a cliff. How cliché. I miss the days when Disney baddies would get some serious comeuppance. Y'know, like getting impaled, blown up by explosives, hanging oneself accidently, devoured by their own minions. Stuff like that.
I just long for the days when the Disney villain was a villain from beginning to end and the only reason for them being a villain was because they are the villain. The Little Mermaid was on Australian TV the other night and I really did enjoy the fact that Ursula was bad because the story needed one and at no point were the audience made to think Ursula was nice.
Daniel wrote: January 5th, 2020, 2:58 pmNo surprise, Frozen II is now the highest-grossing animated movie of all time... if you ignore last years Lion King of which I will.
Well, it does mean we can now ignore the original Lion King, which is now famous for...what, getting another Song Oscar?
The new Lion King technically has animated characters in it, but in terms of production techniques, it’s a photorealistic visual effects movie, not a fully animated one.
The original animated Lion King May have now been surpassed (though not with inflation), but is still notable for being the film that launched what is still Disney's biggest single entertainment property, including stage shows, sequels, remake, television and merchandise. Nothing else touches it, and to think it all came from a movie that Katzenberg was going to dump and thought would top out at $50m...!
So was dinosaur when it came out. They were like "ohh shiny" Final fantasy movie was the same. I don't care how "cool and real" the cg fur is, It's a cartoon. One live shot does not make it a live action film. Both spongebob films have more live action in it. If this can be called a "live action film" then so can the care bears movie!
Even the globes call it a cartoon. Sorry Disney if it's a cg animated film with NO live action actors at all and done like a cartoon, it's a cartoon.
Disney pulled this same crap with dinosaur claiming it was live action and no one bought it them also.
Dinosaur was storyboarded, prevized, directed and animated, by animators.
The (new) Lion King was not. It was produced as a live-action film, using virtual production techniques by live-action filmmakers, and then rendered by a visual effects company.
Sorry it's a cartoon to me. Even the globes says it's one as do most people in Hollywood. Even campea and rob (a movie director) says it's a cartoon and even slams Disney for calling it live action.
Also Disney did try to do the same thing with Dinosaur back then and it didn't work then also. Raggedy ann the movie is more of a live action film then lion king. Sorry Disney it's a cartoon to me! Even some movies chains listed it as a cartoon when they showed it.
Edit--With that said if anyone wants to see it as live action they can. That's the power of movies! I will never see it as live action myself and if I get the dvd it will go in my animation section but if people think it's a cartoon that's fine also. No harm. To me it's a cartoon.
Last edited by gaastra on January 6th, 2020, 3:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
