Frozen 2

[Bartmanhomer]

Tonight I went to see the movie Frozen 2 and I'm going to tell you my thoughts about the movie.

So anyway I saw Frozen 2. I saw the first Frozen movie and it was great. Frozen 2 is about Elsa and her sister Anna go on an adventure outside their kingdom along with their friends Kristoff, Olaf and Sven. It's about the elemental spirits and a group of magical race bring together with their kingdom. There was so much original song and comedy in this movie. I even laugh on Olaf charade jokes as well as Kristoff and Sven singing together. It was a very chate movie and it's Oscar-worthy. I'll give this movie 5 out of 5 stars. :smile:

[Hopeless]

As good as the first one?

Asking because I have nieces!

[Bartmanhomer]

As good as the first one?

Asking because I have nieces!

Yes. It's good as the first one. :smile:

[Lapak]

I loved it, though it is not without weaknesses. It skews heavily towards the fact that it IS a sequel in more than one way - it has a built-in assumption (in so many words in song form, no less) that its audience is older than they were when they saw the first movie, and it expects that the audience is both invested in and will enjoy references to the first story.

It leans both more serious and more goofy than the first movie. These aren't spoilers per se, but just for safety's sake:
there's an 80s-style power ballad love song shot like a music video on the one hand, and a song about how to move forward when everything seems so grim you can't see any hope for the future on the other.

But if you have an audience that FITS the expectation - slightly older kids who loved the first one, that want a story that leans even heavier than the first into questions about growing up and figuring out who you are and what you want to be - I expect it will go over like gangbusters.

It does struggle a bit against itself sometimes, both tonewise (jumps from comedic to dramatic sometimes a bit jarring) and in content. Gonna go a lot deeper in spoilers here, seriously, open this only if you want significant plot spoilers:
I couldn't decide if I was frustrated that Show Yourself wasn't used as the spot-on discovering your truth in a non-straight/het relationship that its first half so clearly wants to be or if I absolutely loved that its back half was a message about realizing that Elsa was her own answer, that she had been trying to find herself all along.

And the reveal/solution to the central mystery felt both telegraphed and rushed at the same time, which was a neat trick, but it might not be so clear to kids who aren't as familiar with that kind of story arc.

So to loop back to the beginning: it's not perfect, but it's a worthy followup and people who liked the first and wanted to see more about the characters will probably enjoy this too.

Disclaimer: I am an absolute sucker for stories revolving around familial love, so I am dead in the sights of both these movies. Also I just saw it last night so the shine has not worn off.

[Emmerlaus]

Ok, I know Im a minority here but both my GF and me didn't like the movie. I ws a fan of the first but this one let me down a lot.

None of the song were catchy for me. All forgettable.

Also, Kristoff song made want to go take a bathroom break. It was cringy and annoying.

The story itself has MAJOR flaws once you start to question it. And some of the elements was so obvious that both me and my GF made us roll their eyes.

No new human character that is likeable too, except maybe for one black guy. Only the new critters and creatures made me somewhat invested.

There was NO surprise within the movie either.

NOW... the movie isnt without qualities either: the visuals is very good. Nice background. Some new critters are nice, Olaf was still funny in this one so I have to give him that. I am glad they went into the magical side of this world of them and that we got some explinations about it. It was nice to see more background of old character too. Some of Elsa feeling and reaction were somewhat touching, I liked seeing them as kid again.

=========

The kids will love this movie and the true fans will probably forgive its weaknesses. I suppose I am only a casual fan of Frozen. And to be honest, the sound in my cinema wasnt great. I might have to try to relisten the movie? I dont know... even liking some of the songs wouldnt have solve the plot problems...

I really wish their was ONE song as good as Let it Go inside the movie but that was too much to expect.

I wish there was new characters that I would have like too or some drama that wasnt obvious to me or that they managed to made me care about it.

But... I know Im ALSO a minority here, same with my GF. We simply werent as invested as other fans I guess?

One of the reason I strongly dislike the movie is that Elsa and Anna parents did the same mistake as Anna in the first movie: love at first sight and abandonning common sense to be with that person.

She gave her her family, her home and left it to save their dad from the escalating conflict. Sure she could have being against killing somebody or she could have be soft-heartened. I get it. But why fleeing with him?.

I loved the common sense approach about love in the first movie and it wasnt reflected AT ALL in the second one. Sure, Kristoff proposed to Anna but I didnt see any real chimestry? I mean not as strong as Anna and her sister.

Would have being nice to see some of their develloppement on that regard. For exemple, maybe Anna hired Kristoff inside the castle and gave him a job? Not like he had one after Elsa was there able to give ice for free. Maybe their is hint that he was uneasy being ordered around by the woman he love or that other servants are a bit jealous of his sudden promotion?

I know they tried to cram too much into a single movie, I get it. But insteads of focusing on Olaf and making him funny again, why not having more time in the preparation before the adventure of themovie. SHow how the characters we love have grown. Olaf own growth was good though but why only him? It was cute to see that Elsa isnt good at charades though but I found that minor compared to what could have being better character develloppement, like new interests and such. I mean, shes no longer cloistered inside a castle, maybe she love skiing, going outside, hiking?

Personnaly, to fix this movie, I would have:

1- Give more time to the other characters exept Olaf.

2- Focus on how Elsa love her sister but feel... smothered by her. Although Anna learned that she didnt need a man to be happy, it doesnt mean that she has other friends either. They are royalty, friends arent easy to have.

3- The moral of the story would be that no matter the distance or if your loved one need times for themselves, its ok. Anna ould have learn to "let her sister go" and growth. Trust her and devellop activities on her own, even if married with Kristoff. To not be as needy as before.

4- Make ONE song that would be catchy, easy to sing. Im not even asking " Let it Go " good but how about " Hakuna Matata " or " You're Welcome ", " Shiny " or something?

5- Remove the dam, replace it by something else. Its a useless plot device made for Elsa to OBVIOUSLY save the day with in the climax. It wasnt needed. And if it was useless for them and a danger for Arendel to be build, it wouldnt have being builded to begin with.

6- Instead of making the forzen river being seperated by a dark see, how about making it a delta that Elsa and Edna parents tried to go from the sea ? It could have being a cold labyrinth with forzen people on it. The Kelpie (water horse) could have guiode Elsa throught that labyrith instead of crossing the sea.

7- For the dam replacement, the conflict could be simply about two different ways of living. The people of the hidden forest were nomad in nature, with no big city. What could have being given by Arendel were... farm tools, technology for makinglasting homes. Imagine what we did to the Amerindians in inspiration. I was thinking that the remnants of the soldiers of Arendel inside the forest should have devellop their own village inside of the forrest. With barricade and everything. Only by destroying the village is the curse lifted by destroying the village cannonpowder, making a huge explosion that anger then earth spirit and make mountain around Arendel fall in the fior and could have destroyed the village around Arendel castle. Elsa can still arrive and save the day or whatever by protecting Arrendel habitant and home from the rockslide.

8- That might be me but less songs, more character develloppements. I didnt come to see a musical, I came to see a appealing story.

And those are simple ideas that came up from the top of my head...

[JadedDM]

Head's up, there is a post-credits scene, if anyone is wondering.

[Emmerlaus]

Head's up, there is a post-credits scene, if anyone is wondering.

Didn't seeing it. Was just glad it was over with. Left immediatly after the ending :smallsigh:

But thanks for the warning!

[JNAProductions]

General thoughts: good, worth watching, but not as good as the first.

[mrgrtt123]

I will watch it on the big screen this weekend since Frozen is my little girl's favorite Disney movie.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Ok, I know Im a minority here but both my GF and me didn't like the movie. I ws a fan of the first but this one let me down a lot.

None of the song were catchy for me. All forgettable.

Also, Kristoff song made want to go take a bathroom break. It was cringy and annoying.

The story itself has MAJOR flaws once you start to question it. And some of the elements was so obvious that both me and my GF made us roll their eyes.

No new human character that is likeable too, except maybe for one black guy. Only the new critters and creatures made me somewhat invested.

There was NO surprise within the movie either.

NOW... the movie isnt without qualities either: the visuals is very good. Nice background. Some new critters are nice, Olaf was still funny in this one so I have to give him that. I am glad they went into the magical side of this world of them and that we got some explinations about it. It was nice to see more background of old character too. Some of Elsa feeling and reaction were somewhat touching, I liked seeing them as kid again.

=========

The kids will love this movie and the true fans will probably forgive its weaknesses. I suppose I am only a casual fan of Frozen. And to be honest, the sound in my cinema wasnt great. I might have to try to relisten the movie? I dont know... even liking some of the songs wouldnt have solve the plot problems...

I really wish their was ONE song as good as Let it Go inside the movie but that was too much to expect.

I wish there was new characters that I would have like too or some drama that wasnt obvious to me or that they managed to made me care about it.

But... I know Im ALSO a minority here, same with my GF. We simply werent as invested as other fans I guess?

One of the reason I strongly dislike the movie is that Elsa and Anna parents did the same mistake as Anna in the first movie: love at first sight and abandonning common sense to be with that person.

She gave her her family, her home and left it to save their dad from the escalating conflict. Sure she could have being against killing somebody or she could have be soft-heartened. I get it. But why fleeing with him?.

I loved the common sense approach about love in the first movie and it wasnt reflected AT ALL in the second one. Sure, Kristoff proposed to Anna but I didnt see any real chimestry? I mean not as strong as Anna and her sister.

Would have being nice to see some of their develloppement on that regard. For exemple, maybe Anna hired Kristoff inside the castle and gave him a job? Not like he had one after Elsa was there able to give ice for free. Maybe their is hint that he was uneasy being ordered around by the woman he love or that other servants are a bit jealous of his sudden promotion?

I know they tried to cram too much into a single movie, I get it. But insteads of focusing on Olaf and making him funny again, why not having more time in the preparation before the adventure of themovie. SHow how the characters we love have grown. Olaf own growth was good though but why only him? It was cute to see that Elsa isnt good at charades though but I found that minor compared to what could have being better character develloppement, like new interests and such. I mean, shes no longer cloistered inside a castle, maybe she love skiing, going outside, hiking?

Personnaly, to fix this movie, I would have:

1- Give more time to the other characters exept Olaf.

2- Focus on how Elsa love her sister but feel... smothered by her. Although Anna learned that she didnt need a man to be happy, it doesnt mean that she has other friends either. They are royalty, friends arent easy to have.

3- The moral of the story would be that no matter the distance or if your loved one need times for themselves, its ok. Anna ould have learn to "let her sister go" and growth. Trust her and devellop activities on her own, even if married with Kristoff. To not be as needy as before.

4- Make ONE song that would be catchy, easy to sing. Im not even asking " Let it Go " good but how about " Hakuna Matata " or " You're Welcome ", " Shiny " or something?

5- Remove the dam, replace it by something else. Its a useless plot device made for Elsa to OBVIOUSLY save the day with in the climax. It wasnt needed. And if it was useless for them and a danger for Arendel to be build, it wouldnt have being builded to begin with.

6- Instead of making the forzen river being seperated by a dark see, how about making it a delta that Elsa and Edna parents tried to go from the sea ? It could have being a cold labyrinth with forzen people on it. The Kelpie (water horse) could have guiode Elsa throught that labyrith instead of crossing the sea.

7- For the dam replacement, the conflict could be simply about two different ways of living. The people of the hidden forest were nomad in nature, with no big city. What could have being given by Arendel were... farm tools, technology for makinglasting homes. Imagine what we did to the Amerindians in inspiration. I was thinking that the remnants of the soldiers of Arendel inside the forest should have devellop their own village inside of the forrest. With barricade and everything. Only by destroying the village is the curse lifted by destroying the village cannonpowder, making a huge explosion that anger then earth spirit and make mountain around Arendel fall in the fior and could have destroyed the village around Arendel castle. Elsa can still arrive and save the day or whatever by protecting Arrendel habitant and home from the rockslide.

8- That might be me but less songs, more character develloppements. I didnt come to see a musical, I came to see a appealing story.

And those are simple ideas that came up from the top of my head...


Was the "New Black Guy" Frozone from the Incredibles? That would make for an interesting story "Frozone in Arendell". Haven't seen the movie yet. I can't really spoil anything. Seems to me however that a black guy in that time period and place would have had to travel an incredible distance to get there.

[JadedDM]

Arendelle is not a real place. It's fictional.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Arendelle is not a real place. It's fictional.
I very much doubt it would be anywhere near Africa. If it were a real place, it seems based in Norway. Not saying its impossible.

[Emmerlaus]

Arendelle is not a real place. It's fictional.

Indeed. And its normal they put a black guy in there. Hollywood is trying its best to be "inclusive" after all. I wont get into politics but as a warning (forum rules), let's just not try be judgemental over the ethniticity of a character in a movie. We dont wanna get warnings.

Althought it would be funny if Frozone was here. I wonder what Elsa would think.

Frozone: I asked my wife where is my costume and people cant get over it! Sponsors keep harrassing me to put their logos on my costume!
Elsa: I make a new dress made from my powers in every movies and Im a queen. I dont need sponsors.
Frozone: Well that's lucky, good for you. Say, what do you do in your free-time?
Elsa: Are you hitting on me? You are a married man!
Frozone: Unhappily married. What, divorce dont exist in Arendel?
Elsa: Careful, bad guys always get what they deserve in Disney?
Frozone: Oh? What would I deserve then?
Els: I think the angry woman behind you is your wife.
Frozone: " FREEZE"

[Tom Kalbfus]

Indeed. And its normal they put a black guy in there. Hollywood is trying its best to be "inclusive" after all. I wont get into politics but as a warning (forum rules), let's just not try be judgemental over the ethniticity of a character in a movie. We dont wanna get warnings.

Althought it would be funny if Frozone was here. I wonder what Elsa would think.

Frozone: I asked my wife where is my costume and people cant get over it! Sponsors keep harrassing me to put their logos on my costume!
Elsa: I make a new dress made from my powers in every movies and Im a queen. I dont need sponsors.
Frozone: Well that's lucky, good for you. Say, what do you do in your free-time?
Elsa: Are you hitting on me? You are a married man!
Frozone: Unhappily married. What, divorce dont exist in Arendel?
Elsa: Careful, bad guys always get what they deserve in Disney?
Frozone: Oh? What would I deserve then?
Els: I think the angry woman behind you is your wife.
Frozone: " FREEZE"
It would be nice if that black character had a good in-story reason for for being there other than for just inclusion and diversity. The best reason I than think of given the setting is that he is an escaped slave, he has taken refuge in Arendell because slavery is not legal. I'm assuming Elsa does not permit slavery in her kingdom.

So basically a slave trader pulled into the harbor and his slave jumped ship. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know, but the clothing does look 18th century and at that time slavery existed, but mostly not in Norway.

[Emmerlaus]

Tom Kalbfus, your lucky if you dont get a warniing from your last post lol

And second, Arendel is in a fantasy setting. Its not our reality and doest have our history either. Your way if thinking would be ifArendel existed in the past or if we had magic in our reality. So your ideas are way off the mark. :smalltongue:

[Tom Kalbfus]

Tom Kalbfus, your lucky if you dont get a warniing from your last post lol

And second, Arendel is in a fantasy setting. Its not our reality and doest have our history either. Your way if thinking would be ifArendel existed in the past or if we had magic in our reality. So your ideas are way off the mark. :smalltongue:
There was a painting of Joan of Arc in the first movie, so it appears that Arendell is a fictional country on Earth, somewhere in Scandinavia.

[JadedDM]

It would be nice if that black character had a good in-story reason for for being there other than for just inclusion and diversity. The best reason I than think of given the setting is that he is an escaped slave, he has taken refuge in Arendell because slavery is not legal. I'm assuming Elsa does not permit slavery in her kingdom.

So basically a slave trader pulled into the harbor and his slave jumped ship. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know, but the clothing does look 18th century and at that time slavery existed, but mostly not in Norway.

So you're saying a black person cannot exist in a fictional land without plot relevant justification? And said justification must be tied into slavery somehow?

[Dienekes]

So you're saying a black person cannot exist in a fictional land without plot relevant justification? And said justification must be tied into slavery somehow?

Well it’s pretty directly 1840 Norway. In a society that has pretty clearly lasted long enough to evolve white skin. Black people then popping up wouldn’t happen. So they must come for a reason. Historically those reasons are: invasion, forced relocation, mass migration, trade, nobility going on expensive tours.

Of those, invasion is ridiculous, trade is possible, but incredibly unlikely there are much closer and better markets. Slavery is a bit more likely though it would require ignoring the actual Norway’s history on the matter (they did take part in the slave trade, but stopped after breaking from Denmark some time before the shows setting and did not allow slavery on Norwegian soil). But nobility going on expensive tours of various European powers is fairly common for this time period.

Mind you, such a person would be considered a court oddity. They wouldn’t just appear in the backwater somewhere, they’d be in court where they can dine with lords and get gawked at.

[JadedDM]

I am no historian, but I'm pretty sure 1840 Norway didn't have magic or trolls or elemental spirits. Ergo, this does not take place in 1840 Norway. It takes place in the fictional kingdom of Arendelle. And we don't really know anything about the setting, especially it's history. And we don't know a lot about Matthias, either. He came to Arendelle with his father when he was young (from where or what circumstances are never said), then climbed the ranks of the guard to eventually become general. That's all we know for sure.

Furthermore, he's hardly the only black person seen in Arendelle. There are a number in the background, as well. And none of them are being gawked at.

[Dienekes]

I am no historian, but I'm pretty sure 1840 Norway didn't have magic or trolls or elemental spirits. Ergo, this does not take place in 1840 Norway. It takes place in the fictional kingdom of Arendelle. And we don't really know anything about the setting, especially it's history. And we don't know a lot about Matthias, either. He came to Arendelle with his father when he was young (from where or what circumstances are never said), then climbed the ranks of the guard to eventually become general. That's all we know for sure.

Trolls and elemental spirits don't really effect migratory patterns. World building rules remain unchanged.

However, ooh, foreign mercenaries. Yeah those are a thing too, and on an individualized level too so you wouldn't really need to explain why it's just one random guy. They went straight Othello here. Or Yasuke. Or Varangian Guard. Yeah, that one happens usually when the nobility in charge tends to move past the original violent roots of aristocracy and start looking outward for their muscle. From this description, Matthias seems ok by my book.

[Cen]

Arendelle is not a real place. It's fictional.

Actually not really, we see father reading a book by - using his words - "Some new Danish author" so Arendelle might not be a real place, it's placed in our world.

[Willie the Duck]

Scandinavians have been widely travelling seafaring people since before Norway was a discrete country. The idea of a black person being a ridiculous anomaly in the 1840s (the age of steam, no less, where travel from Africa to the North Sea would have been a matter of weeks, not months) is absolutely not in line with reality. That the plot (/'the camera') happens to involve the one black person rather than the one Spaniard or Greek in the same city (who would be of equal level of unusualness in said situation, and roughly the same amount of travel time from home) is clearly deliberate. As to explanations, unless the tropical fruit seen on a banquet table are also given brief explanation for how they got there, I would see it as being overly deliberate and a detraction. Why provide an explanation just for them (and not everything else, from fruit to fashion to the absence of privies or chamber pots or whale meat or other things they didn't want to explain to 4 year olds)?

Anyways, I generally agree that the movie was okay, with more strength to the visuals than the story and no runaway hit like 'Let it Go' (probably to the movie's detriment but every parents' benefit).

[Emmerlaus]

Anyways, I generally agree that the movie was okay, with more strength to the visuals than the story and no runaway hit like 'Let it Go' (probably to the movie's detriment but every parents' benefit).

I agree with this. However, the elements you mentionned that are lacking are what I enjoyed in the last movie. So this squel wasn't giving me what I was hoping for. Not even good character develloppement iif you ask me.

So yeah, I didn't like the movie myself but I can understand why people liked it. For exemple, I must admit I loved the little lizard though, he was adorable. :smallamused:

[Wookieetank]

Overall enjoyed it, but found it way too predictable.


-Massive Dam, oh that's getting broken
-"Surprise attack" by the north peoples, Pretty sure grandpa is evil and the one who started it
-Dad rescued by mysterious north person, that's definitely mom.
-Song about not going too deep, Elsa is totally going to do that.

Was also not thrilled that it basically copied the ending of Ralph Breaks the Internet and Toy Story 4. Starting to think Disney/Pixar can only tell one kind of story at this point.

Was amused at Olaf being snapped, Disney must've spent a lot of money making that effect to be reusing it, again.


The visuals were fantastic, and the music was decent. Olaf is great fun, and I quite enjoyed Kristoph's 80's rock number, even if it felt a bit out of place. Place it at a solid 3.5/5.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Scandinavians have been widely travelling seafaring people since before Norway was a discrete country. The idea of a black person being a ridiculous anomaly in the 1840s (the age of steam, no less, where travel from Africa to the North Sea would have been a matter of weeks, not months) is absolutely not in line with reality. That the plot (/'the camera') happens to involve the one black person rather than the one Spaniard or Greek in the same city (who would be of equal level of unusualness in said situation, and roughly the same amount of travel time from home) is clearly deliberate. As to explanations, unless the tropical fruit seen on a banquet table are also given brief explanation for how they got there, I would see it as being overly deliberate and a detraction. Why provide an explanation just for them (and not everything else, from fruit to fashion to the absence of privies or chamber pots or whale meat or other things they didn't want to explain to 4 year olds)?

Anyways, I generally agree that the movie was okay, with more strength to the visuals than the story and no runaway hit like 'Let it Go' (probably to the movie's detriment but every parents' benefit).

1840? They had guns in the 1840s, why then in the first movie were crossbows and swords used?

I think an earlier time period was represented. Offhand the 1700s perhapd, similar to the show Outlander.

Did you ever see the television shoe Outlander? I remember in the first season in 18th century Scotland, everyone was white, by the second season, the action was in France and again everyone was white. By the third season the action moved to the Carribean, and there we saw some black people, in the 4th season the show moved to America, and American Indians played a significant role. The show basically transports you to a different time period where the rules of society are different. Europe of the 18th century was different from the Europe of the 21st century that we are all familiar with.

[Willie the Duck]

1840? They had guns in the 1840s, why then in the first movie were crossbows and swords used?

Good point. I saw that up above and didn't question it.

[Emmerlaus]

Good point. I saw that up above and didn't question it.

Or its a Disney movie and it wouldnt use a gun against a a human being? :smallconfused:

I can only remember Gaston using one against a flying goose. Notice how he only used a bow against the Beast however?

[Tom Kalbfus]

Or its a Disney movie and it wouldnt use a gun against a a human being? :smallconfused:

I can only remember Gaston using one against a flying goose. Notice how he only used a bow against the Beast however?
Pocahontas was a Disney Movie also, there were guns in that movie.

[Willie the Duck]

Interestingly, it was the costuming that costuming (https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Arendelle) that convinced me that this was post-medieval, and there seems to be some support (https://findingarendelle.tumblr.com/Norway)for that.

[Temotei]

Based on there being photography that likely doesn't take days of exposure in the public, I'd estimate the film is placed around the mid 19th century or equivalent in-universe.

[Alhallor]

I really liked the visuals, they were really great. The other thing that was great:

Olaf rehashing the plot of the first movie was really the best part of the movie for me.

Though I noticed something in the story that really bothered me, but perhaps it's just me.

Elsa is supposed to be the mediator between humans and spirit right? Why does she use violence to beat down nearly every spirit? Seriously she throws magic at two of them till they give up and have no way to do anything then surrender. She straight up BROKE IN the third and that is supposed to be good? I mean, I get it that you can't talk through every problem but that just seemed excessive.

[Emmerlaus]

Though I noticed something in the story that really bothered me, but perhaps it's just me...

Yeah, calling her a mediator was farfetchd but it wouldnt be as fairy tale-ish if they said there was a stronger element then all of the rest...

And all of them doesnt seem as dangerous as each other. The Earth Elementals were definitly more fearsome.

Then again, imagine if if was the fire elemenst who was the strongest lol! :smallbiggrin:



https://cdn.hitc-s.com/i/1658/frozen_2_bruni_the_fire_salamander_header_1405519. jpg

[Tom Kalbfus]

Based on there being photography that likely doesn't take days of exposure in the public, I'd estimate the film is placed around the mid 19th century or equivalent in-universe.
Photography, was there a camera in Frozen 2?

[Delicious Taffy]

Photography, was there a camera in Frozen 2?

Matthias and the woman he asked about are seen looking at a photograph of themselves, at one point. It's a brief gag, and not remotely important to the plot.

[Lapak]

Matthias and the woman he asked about are seen looking at a photograph of themselves, at one point. It's a brief gag, and not remotely important to the plot.
It does let us pin the timeline pretty specifically to a real-world analogue, though, as it was an unknown technology when the mist went up and is available in Arendelle when it comes down. The daguerreotype became widely available in 1839, so '1840s' is a pretty solid guess as far as a time frame for the present of the movies.

[Alhallor]

https://cdn.hitc-s.com/i/1658/frozen_2_bruni_the_fire_salamander_header_1405519. jpg

That is great!

That was also another point I thought was strange. Wind is 1 thing (supposedly) Fire is also 1 and Water is also 1 individual. Why is earth multiple entities?

[Beleriphon]

Actually not really, we see father reading a book by - using his words - "Some new Danish author" so Arendelle might not be a real place, it's placed in our world.

That's a pretty obvious reference to Hans Christian Andersen. Clearly in Disney's Princess Universe Andersen is basing his fairy tales on real people. Frozen is The Ice Queen, the Little Mermaid is well you know (and two of the royal attendants that Prince Eric had on his ship were at Elsa's coronation in Frozen).

[Emmerlaus]

That is great!

Thanks! Glad to know the humor is appreciated! :smallbiggrin:


That was also another point I thought was strange. Wind is 1 thing (supposedly) Fire is also 1 and Water is also 1 individual. Why is earth multiple entities?

I believe their is more then one of everything but we only saw one of the other elements. Im guessing the other elements dont like to gather as a flock unlike the earth giants

[Temotei]

It does let us pin the timeline pretty specifically to a real-world analogue, though, as it was an unknown technology when the mist went up and is available in Arendelle when it comes down. The daguerreotype became widely available in 1839, so '1840s' is a pretty solid guess as far as a time frame for the present of the movies.

Since they were in the mist for thirty-six years, I think the range is a bit wider, but that's how I extrapolated, yeah.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Since they were in the mist for thirty-six years, I think the range is a bit wider, but that's how I extrapolated, yeah.
Maybe it is set in the Marvel Universe, that has fictional places such as Wakanda, why not Arendell as well?

[Alhallor]

Maybe it is set in the Marvel Universe, that has fictional places such as Wakanda, why not Arendell as well?

I kinda thought it could be an Avengers situation. Elsa recruiting the "avatar" of fall, then in the next movie summer, then spring to fight some mighty evil sorceres/dude.

[Delicious Taffy]

I kinda thought it could be an Avengers situation. Elsa recruiting the "avatar" of fall, then in the next movie summer, then spring to fight some mighty evil sorceres/dude.

So, just RWBY, then.

[Kornaki]

I didn't like the movie that much, because it felt like all the sub plots fell flat.

For what it's worth I was a huge fan of the first frozen, and would not recommend anyone see the sequel unless they are looking to take a nap with something on in the background on the TV.


Olaf talking about growing up didn't really seem motivated by much, or result in much by the end.

Kristoff's absurd proposal non sense didn't make me root for him to pull it off at the end. I actually wanted Anna to reject him for the lulz since it seemed so overplayed.

Tearing down the dam - they could have just.... Taken a bit of time to do it? Like, Anna could have died in her plan and then they would be stuck with no one even knowing the dam is the problem. Did she have any reason to think it needed to be done without even talking to anyone about it?

And Anna thinking Elsa was dead only for her to show up on the horse - we already knew she was alive. That had no emotional punch to it.

[Emmerlaus]

I didn't like the movie that much, because it felt like all the sub plots fell flat.

For what it's worth I was a huge fan of the first frozen, and would not recommend anyone see the sequel unless they are looking to take a nap with something on in the background on the TV.


THANK YOU!

Im just glad Im not the only one saying this lol

[gotgame]

Taking my daughter to see this soon!

[Tyndmyr]

Since they were in the mist for thirty-six years, I think the range is a bit wider, but that's how I extrapolated, yeah.

That'd put us to mid 1870s at the earliest, then. Not that I think that Disney is that fixated on an actual canonical timeframe. It's "fantasy" time period, and probably not much more than that. But amusing, sort of, to pin it down.


I didn't like the movie that much, because it felt like all the sub plots fell flat.

Tearing down the dam - they could have just.... Taken a bit of time to do it? Like, Anna could have died in her plan and then they would be stuck with no one even knowing the dam is the problem. Did she have any reason to think it needed to be done without even talking to anyone about it?



Hah.

No, there's no particular reason why Anna should even know about the dam. She jumps from realizing that the king is the aggressor to just assuming that. Which happens to be correct, because plot, but it is not conveyed to her on screen.

That whole plot is basically just the Heart of Tefiti from Moana recycled and mashed in to fit.

Overall I found the film generally enjoyable despite the plot being...not great. I didn't get bored in the theater, anyways, and I didn't actively hate it. But I certainly can't call it a GOOD plot.

[tomandtish]

it's a fairly typical Disney sequel, which means there will be more songs, none of them will stand out like ones from the first movie, and some things will be changed.

I did love Kristoff's 80's power ballad.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Lapak
…’1840s' is a pretty solid guess as far as a time frame for the present of the movies.


Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
Not that I think that Disney is that fixated on an actual canonical timeframe. It's "fantasy" time period, and probably not much more than that.

As it happens, the 1840s is the exact timeframe that the costume references are from, at least in the first movie, so I’m pretty sure this is the intended period.

I just came back from seeing it and really enjoyed it. As others have said, not nearly as good as the first, but decent music and Elsa’s new look is great.


I absolutely loved the water horse, which seems heavily based on the pooka, and the fact that Elsa tames it to ride is just perfect. I love the reference to Celtic mythology, as well as the subtler reference to the salamander, which was a flaming beast in medieval European mythology.

I was hoping there would be an actual Fifth Spirit separate from Elsa. It’s always a little bit of a disappointment when the hero (or heroine) goes in search of something, only to be told it was them all along.

Overall, I think it was a worthy successor. Not sure if there’s much room for a third movie, though, since it seems to end on a rather decisive note, rather than the happy-and-promising finale of the first one. But I’ll be interested to see if they crank out an animated series, the way they already have for Tangled and Big Hero 6.

.

[Majin]

So I went and saw this yesterday. It overall felt pretty mediocre to me. I did like first Frozen alright, but this just fell flat. I still like Let it go, but I don't feel this has anything as catchy as it, though I do still like Idina Menzel's singing. My points might have been made earlier, but I just feel like rambling a bit.

So the sideplots weren't very interesting. I feel like the movie would have been better, if it just focused on Elsa. I don't feel like the creators really knew what to do with Anna, Kristoff and Olaf, they could have stayed behind, and maybe they could have shown them protecting the citizens of Arendelle or something. I mean now Kristoff just disappears from the movie! They could have focused more on the new characters and their culture, the spirits and the magic, and how Elsa actually confronts the spirits. Now it just felt rushed, and the dam was just their Deathstar, a big object they can destroy to resolve the plot. Not that they really needed the heroes to do it, since the earth elementals could have destroyed it themselves at any time.

And I get it's a kids' movie, but everything was so predictable. Grandpa was a bad guy, dam needed to be destroyed... I made Last Airbender joke when they mentioned the four elements the first time, and that comparison is pretty accurate, I think they even used the 'bridge between two worlds' phrase. Not that I minded it as a plot, but they didn't really do it very well.

Olaf's jokes kinda fell flat to me mostly, except his recap was kinda fun ("Well at least they have their parents... *beat* Their parents are dead."). I guess they tried to have kind of a character arc for him... But it feels like the resolution was cut? But many people probably like him, so I guess Disney knew what they were doing. At least many people in my theater seemed to be laughing at his jokes (it wasn't a dubbed viewing so I think most were adults and older kids).

I don't regret seeing it, especially since the tickets were cheap, and the movie wasn't super bad or anything. The songs were still good, if not as memorable as in the first movie. (I did like the sound of that sprit "wail" or whatever they played many times and used in the songs). The visuals were nice too, the fire salamander was cute and the water horse was cool. I just feel like the movie didn't really live up to its potential. It seemed like they wanted to do something more adult, but didn't really dare. And they also couldn't decide which side plots to use, so they just crammed everything in. Kids will still probably like it, older fans of the first might or might not.

[danzibr]

Overall, I liked it. The intro to Frozen has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, then they worked it into the sequel.

I prefer the first, but I’m sure I’ll see the second a good few times throughout my life.

[Xuc Xac]

I've seen this movie several times while home with my kid. Some random replies to various things in the thread :

The new Danish author is obviously Hans Christian Anderson who started putting out books in the 1820s. The old map that the king and queen followed north was labeled 1840 in Roman numerals. Frozen was supposed to be set in the 1840s and Frozen 2 is supposed to be 3 years later, but the time references make it appear that F2 is set in the 1860s. It's all kind of fuzzy, so it's best to say mid-late 19th century and stop there.

There have been Africans in Norway in small numbers since the 1670s. Denmark-Norway participated in the African slave trade from the Gold Coast until 1803 and had emancipation in all Danish lands in 1848 (because they stopped shipping new slaves, but still owned a lot of them in the West Indies). It wasn't unusual for people from all over the world to be anywhere. Trade wasn't about who your neighbors were, but who had the stuff you wanted. Rich and important people could be found far from home. The prince of Hawai'i went to college in England and there were Samurai living in Spain. I think the 1860 or 1870 US census even listed a Japanese man with the occupation of samurai living in Colorado. People really got around.

The water horse thing is a neck, nick, or nøkk. They come in different shapes in folklore, but F2 stuck to the horse shape.

Arendelle is clearly in western Norway (like the real town of Arendal). The priest in the church speaks Old Norse during the coronation of Elsa. The Southern Isles are either in Denmark (islands south of Norway) or the Hebrides (which are called "Southern Isles" in Old Norse).

[DeadMech]

I watched it awhile ago and I think I'll go with the Chernobyl meme. 3.6 Not great, not terrible. It's not as good as the first in my opinion but it's not offensively bad.

Some people think Kristoff's song was cringe. And they are factually wrong. It was one of the highest points of the movie and completely unapologetic. No, what was cringe was the water has memory thing. I deal with alternative medicine people all the time so that phrase alone drew me out of the movie every time it came up.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I'll say this, I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as the first movie but I enjoyed the first movie a ton. I do think it was better than average with some good high points. It didn't have quite the same knock out hit as 'Let it Go' but that's largely because it felt like every song was trying to be that. I honestly feel like the movie needed a more firm editor with all the elements that are put into this movie and rarely utilized if at all.

Most of the characters aside from Elsa, Anna, and Olaf just...don't seem to serve a purpose besides 'existing' with little bearing on the plot. I honestly feel that if they had kept the cast smaller the story would be more cohesive. As it is, it feels a bit scatter-shot.

Then again, that would also give me more Olaf, a character I really don't like most of the time since he's a comedy sponge but the comedy coming out of him, especially in this movie, feels very out of place for the movie. So...bring on secondary characters that don't do a whole lot!

[Dargaron]

Are we still doing spoilers for this?

So, I apparently wasn't on the right wavelength when the trailer was released, and I assumed that brown-haired-girl (who everyone assumed would be Elsa's romantic interest) would be another magic user who was luring Elsa into a trap in order to absorb her energy for nefarious purposes. Basically, the same way Hans preyed on Anna's insecurities, Brown-Haired Girl would've preyed on Elsa's ("I'm another person just like you." "I understand what you're going through." etc.)

When the King and Queen were telling the story about the Northuldra in the beginning, I found it interesting that they used the term "exploited" when talking about the Northuldra and their spirits. I had a brief hope that the "bad guy" for the movie would turn out to actually be one of the Northuldra, who has managed to subordinate the various spirits under her control (without the knowledge of her countrymen/women) and now wants Elsa's power for herself. It would've been a bold move for Disney to have the nature-loving, close-to-earth spiritual people actually have a bad egg among them.

You could still integrate the Grandfather's betrayal into the plot: let's say that Brown-Haired Girl's grandfather was the murdered chief, and she took all the wrong lessons from that fateful day: peaceful intentions don't mean squat when the outside world is a cruel, selfish place, so take waht you can, when you can. There could be a something of a revenge angle in this case: not only does depowering Elsa get Brown-Haired Girl personal power, it also involves getting vengeance for her grandfather.

Barring the above, I would've had the Earth Spirit be complicit in the whole scheme, rather than just a showing up as grumpy, sleepy rocks. What is a dam, after all, if not Earth exerting mastery over Water? Maybe their grandfather and the Earth Spirit came to some kind of twisted agreement where they'd split "the spoils" of depowering the Northuldra and disrupting the spiritual order. That would explain why the Spirits need Elsa/Anna to intervene: it was human-spirit collaboration that caused the crisis, so now they need human-spirit collaboration to solve it. Plus, it would show that the spirits themselves are just as imperfect as humans: Earth was tempted by the prospect of undue power, just like their grandfather.

Finally, I would've had the destruction of the dam destroy Arendelle. No lightspeed Elsa riding several days' travel to block the wave: Arendelle should have been destroyed at the end of the movie and have to be rebuilt later. Not only would this make the ending more plausible, if slightly bittersweet, but it would also open up merchandising opportunities in the long run: the design team could play around with a post-destruction, rebuilt Arendelle for new playsets and whatnot.