Frozen 2

[Alhallor]

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

Spoiler: Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler: Thing I didn't get.

Show

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...

Spoiler: I dont know

Show

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!

Spoiler: And then the fire nation attacked:

Show

[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]

Spoiler: And then the fire nation attacked:

Show

That is great!

Spoiler: The elements

Show

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!

Spoiler: The elements

Show

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?

Spoiler: Elements

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler: One thing I REALLY liked...

Show

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.

Spoiler: Favorite Part

Show

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.

Spoiler: My One Disappointment

Show

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.

Spoiler

Show

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?

Spoiler: Opinions

Show

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.