Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Inspired by the title of the H.C. Andersen fairytale "The Snow Queen"

Suggest a change in the introduction from "Inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen,..." to "Inspired by the title of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen,... ". As is quoted later in the article from the producer of Frozen, Peter del Vecho: " 'Inspired by' means exactly that. There is snow and there is ice and there is a Queen, but other than that, we depart from it." Anyone who has actually read "The Snow Queen" will agree: The only overlap in the story is what can be gleaned from the title. See for example [[1]] or [[2]]. The two stories bear absolutely zero relation to one another beyond that. Because of this, it is inaccurate to write that Frozen is inspired by H.C. Andersen's fairly tale, since it includes none of the subject matter from inside the book, only from its title. It would be correct to say that it is inspired by the title of H.C. Andersen's fairy tale.

Having read the story and seen the movie, agreed.
Is someone going to change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who provides a reliable source making the statement that it was just inspired by the title can change it. The key is the source, not our personal interpretation of the film, its contents and its inspirations. --McDoobAU93 00:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as stated above: In the Wikipedia article itself, Peter del Vecho is cited as stating "...There is snow and there is ice and there is a queen, but other than that, we depart from it..."
"...and there is ice..." - more than just the title then. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any reasonable person would say that including ice in the movie can meaningfully constitute being inspired by the actual content of "The Snow Queen" beyond the title, when there are no other shared events, characters, or even themes. Snow and ice are nearly synonymous. "The Snow Queen" is one of Andersen's deepest stories. If "Frozen" was in any way inspired by it, there would be some shared elements beyond "there is snow and ice, and there is a queen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.212.4 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Let the referenced article content speak for itself and don't make a summary conclusion statement that is not strictly accurate. The initial inspiration was the book but most of that got thrown away in development because they couldn't pull it off. You can't accurately state that the only thing Disney did was look at the title and create a movie, it was much more complex than that and the article does describe most of the development motivations and processes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Frozen UK sing-along release box office gross

I wonder if it should be added. I wonder if the box office results of atleast the first week of the re-release should be added to the article or not and whether it is feasible. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, KahnJohn27, if you have any box office results with sources please add them here. I also read elsewhere that the film's sing-along version was also re-released in several Southeast Asian markets. If you have information regarding these markets then I would be glad. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree Lavinder111 (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition of FRINGE material

An editor and his teacher are repeatedly adding a new section. I believe this is WP:FRINGE and gives WP:UNDUE weight to one particular source of questionable validity. Either way no single section should be predomiantly centered on a single source, especially when that source is neither an academic source nor a major publication. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The section in question actually uses two sources: 298 and 299. Reverts made by Betty Logan amount more to character attack and distrust of Wiki Edu than actual good faith on article improvement. Attacking the student and teacher does not improve the article. The theme of female empowerment in Frozen is hardly fringe. I agree that another, more academic source might be needed but 2 sources from popular culture does establish a mainstream representation. Please do not engage in personal attacks. I suggest that we revert student edits in order to encourage new editors and add another source to back up legitimacy of this theme. Matthewvetter (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest we follow standard wiki policies and that you obtain a consensus here for your student's edits first. While other sources are used in the section the central thesis comes from a singular source, and I would argue that if it is not possible to maintain the section in that form without completely elimating the source then it constitutes a WP:FRINGE opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
On Second glance, four references are used in this section (296-299). Your claim that the section is "predominantly centered on a single source" doesn't add up, unfortunately. I am still waiting to hear you make a specific argument about the inappropriateness of this addition, one that can actually be supported by application of a specific policy rather than just mere reference to one. Matthewvetter (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Please identify the specific claim or passage you are asserting is fringe, so that it can be supported more effectively. Matthewvetter (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Where to start? The first two sentences of the section (Female empowerment is a common theme throughout the film, particularly with Anna and Elsa. The classic Disney movies, for example Snow White and Cinderella, were made in a time where the feminine ideals of women match the feminine qualities of the main characters; shy, innocent, and sweet) is attributed to a graduate student. Will you please explain to me how this complies with WP:RS? The second and third paragraphs are entirely attributed to mic.com, a source that may or may not comply with WP:RS; nevertheless this comprises the main thesis of the section, and yet you are completely relying on a single, arguably minor source. At best this fails to comply with WP:WEIGHT, but is most likely WP:FRINGE if you cannot come up with reputable sources that basically say the same thing. The final paragraph appears to have nothing to do with the source that accompanies it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That's actually helpful as opposed to your original comments and reverts. I will pass this advice on to my student and we will work together to improve the section with additional sources. Please try to have more patience for Wiki Edu and don't bite the newbies. Matthewvetter (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me. There is nothing "bitey" about my revert: a revert is a legitimate part of the editing process and my edit included a full reason with a link to the relevent guideline. There is only so much you can fit into an edit summary. If your student wanted a more comprehensive reason or wanted to discuss the edit further then there was nothing preventing them either starting a discussion here or leaving a message at my talk page. These are basic editing principles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Fully concur with Betty Logan on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Main film number query

I think there should be a note regarding the fact that the Winnie the Pooh reboot was excised from the main films in the UK for marketing purposes, making Frozen the 52nd main film rather than the 53rd. Visokor (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As the film is an American production, and the American studio indicates that it is the 53rd film in the line, then it shall be the 53rd film in the line. --McDoobAU93 00:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Trademark Infringement case - French or Canadian?

This page says that the "Frozen Land" film that ran into trademark infringement problems was French, while the wikipedia page for the film itself says that it was Canadian. Is this a case where the language was French, so people assumed the film was as well? Anyway, it seems worth correcting here. The site for the original film indicates that it's based on Inuit source material, which sounds very Canadian, and not at all originally intended as a knock-off - even if American distributors made it into one. 50.139.122.155 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frozen (2013 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Original, and loosely based off Snow Queen?

How can it be both original AND based off Snow Queen? It's either an original story, and the highest grossing, or it's based off Snow Queen, it can't be both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:D7:2CF7:2B5:674C (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelinaramos18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Category disputes

The following categories that were removed seemed perfectly valid:

Category:2010s romantic comedy films Category:American coming-of-age films Category:American computer-animated films Category:Animated adventure films Category:Animated comedy films Category:Animated fantasy films Category:Animated musical films Category:Dolby Atmos films Category:Films about orphans Category:Films about trolls Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters

Most of these were here previously, and some follow existing categories. Also Category:Buddy films seems just as valid to Frozen as it does to Beauty and the Beast or The Princess and the Frog. Kkjj (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think they're "perfectly valid"? Like Geraldo Perez said, most of them are WP:SUPERCAT. Also, regarding these edits: please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a comment wall where people can post their conjectures as they like. Please take time to read WP:CATDEF, and also WP:NOT. Cheers! -- ChamithN (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:Defining and WP:NOR I also removed some more genre categories that were not supported by definitions in the lead. We don't want editor's personal evaluation as to genre in articles - genres must be supported by reliable sources and that includes category contents. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
To emphasize as Kkjj and his obvious logged out IP 2602:306:83A9:3D00::/64 keeps adding back in ignoring the above. Categories are base on what is in the article and what is in the article for genres, and that includes genre categories, is what is supported by reliable sources, not the personal opinion of the person adding the categories. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close not moved (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Frozen (2013 film) → Frozen (film) – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is the most notable film known as Frozen. Be wary of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS as I'm assuming most of you aren't eight year olds or otherwise of the target demographic. Prisencolin (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose 5 other films with the name "Frozen", may be more in the future. Also Frozen (film) is still a title with a disambiguator so removing the 2013 really doesn't make adding this to articles any easier. A proper primary topic would one without any disambiguation and that would be Frozen if there were to be one and that, in my opinion, needs to be a disambiguation page. However, I do think, that a stronger argument could be made to move this article to Frozen as the primary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec) A primary topic is the title without any disambiguation so the primary topic is Frozen if this film were to be considered primary and moved. Frozen (film) already redirects to Frozen § Film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments stated above. "Come on guys, you don't like Disney musicals?" (As a matter of fact, I do, but...) That sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. There's really no reason to remove just part of the disambiguation suffix. WP:NCF seems to advise against such moves and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT doesn't say anything about "primary topic redirects" for partial disambiguation. WP:IAR is not an excuse to do whatever you want. This article being at "Frozen (2013 film)" does not really reduce the quality of Wikipedia in any way. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCF. If this film was the primary topic, it would simply be at Frozen. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lugnuts. –Davey2010Talk 18:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Geraldo Perez. If there were other entities named Frozen but only this one film, I'd agree with it. As noted, there are multiple films already of that name, so shortening it to just Frozen (film) is still ambiguous. --McDoobAU93 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. An early close might be in order if anyone wants to build a snowman... There might be a case for moving this to Frozen, but that's not what this RM is about. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect

So seeing how the RM went, it might be a better idea to just redirect Frozen (film) to this one as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The RFD is here.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close not moved. (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


Frozen (2013 film) → Frozen – "Frozen" topics (from the Frozen dab page) not related to the 2013 film have received 114,224 pageviews in the last 90 days (108,570 + 5,654). The total increases to 197,025 when 82,801 pageviews of Frozen (soundtrack) and Frozen (franchise), derivative topics of the 2013 film, are included. (Frozen Fever is not included as only a partial title match.)

Frozen (2013 film) received 487,933 views in the last 90 days – nearly 2.5 times as many views as all other 'Frozen' topics combined, and more than 4 times as many views as all 'Frozen' topics not related to the 2013 film. PTOPIC says, A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. This criterion is clearly met.

There is, of course, the more damning PTOPIC criterion of long-term significance, and if that outweighs Freezing enough for Frozen (2013 film) to be the primary topic of "Frozen". Obviously a natural physical condition will have more long-term significance than a piece of entertainment. But there is a clear difference between "freezing" and "frozen". I highly doubt most readers who search for "Frozen" are looking for the freezing article, especially since the freezing article only received 31,541 views in the last 90 days.

The final obstacle to the Disney movie being the primary topic for "Frozen" is if this RM is rooted too heavily in recentism. The film article remains highly popular as the film approaches its third anniversary. This is not a current box office monster. It's had some time to cool off. As the 9th biggest movie of all time (Disney's largest non-Marvel, non-Lucasfilm affair), this clearly has long-term significance and is not just a passing fad. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose the primary usage for the word frozen is the adjectival form of freeze, rather than some film. Pppery 23:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Do You Want to Build a Snowman?. Freezing is the long-term topic, the film is not, at least not now. When "frozen" refers mainly to Disney's Frozen and not to the action we can discuss the page-view significance. The best solution seems to be redirecting Frozen (film) here. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The article about freezing is located at freezing, not frozen. Frozen doesn't even point to the freezing article; it's currently a dab page. All the more reason the Disney film, which is an exact title match, should be primary. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • LOL this RM is worse than the previous one!, Has no chance as "Frozen film" and doesn't have a chance in hell as "Frozen" either, Might I suggest someone close this and it's a waste of the communities time (The nom did this in good faith no doubt about it but it's still a waste of time). –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure how much of a primary topic this is, but initiating a new RM only a day after a previous RM was closed as "not moved" feels rather soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd understand that point if the same title were being proposed. Chase (talk | contributions) 03:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and WP:SNOW close. Because the previous nomination to a more disambiguated title was closed under WP:SNOW, this one has even less of a chance to be successful.  ONR  (talk)  10:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the primary topic of the term. The current setup allows for easy identification of incorrect incoming links, which the proposed page move would not support. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 12:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above. Still way too soon to determine if the film's catchphrases ("Do you want to build a snowman?") will have a lasting effect on popular culture like The Dark Knight ("Not the hero we deserved, but the one that we needed") and Scarface ("Say hello to my little friend"). --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Film genre

Currently the film is described as a musical fantasy film in the intro. Musical is based on the significant article content that describes the music of the film and the major part that plays in the film and how it progresses the film narrative. Fantasy is the basic concept of having ice powers and how that drives the story. Those are major themes of the film and sufficiently and accurately describe the film. Nothing more is appropriate and anything more takes away from what the films major themes are.

I don't see any references or article content that describe the film as a comedy, there are comedic elements as in most light films but that does not make it a film where the main emphasis is on humor which is what comedy films do. Likewise there are dramatic elements of the film and action elements but that is not the emphasis of the film. Drama film or a action film are not descriptive of Frozen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

final plot none of Hans Christian Andersen "The Snow Queen"

  • "The Snow Queen" (Danish: Snedronningen) is an original fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen (1805–1875). The tale was first published 21 December 1844 in New Fairy Tales. First Volume. Second Collection. 1845. (Danish: Nye Eventyr. Første Bind. Anden Samling. 1845.)[1]

The article details the very complex history of the evolution of the plot of FROZEN the movie. There does seem to be some original connection to the original Hans Christian Andersen story. But the final product has no connection to the plot of The Snow Queen! The article should clearly communicate this basic fact. It seems like the movie may be somewhat marketed as having more of a connection than it really does -- and the current article implicitly perpetuates this?-71.174.190.122 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The article does say "inspired by ..." and not "based upon ...", the latter of which implies a more direct connection to the original work. How would you recommend mentioning this in the article? --McDoobAU93 19:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well -- that is a good question, and not at all an easy challenge! I would urge all those that want to work on this problem to start by reading the plot summary in the Snow Queen fairytale article -- and realize how totally unsuitable it would be for a modern Disney entertainment, and how different it is from the Disney movie that was ultimately made...

Now, compare that to our current FROZEN lede, telling casual readers right at the beginning "Inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Snow Queen",[5]"... Even though this is in an historic-technical sense true, it nonetheless leaves a casual reader with an incorrect impression that there would be some actual similarity between the plots.

It is so difficult to come up with an appropriate way to say in the lede that there is a connection in the way the movie was developed, yet no connection in the final plot -- that my best suggestion for now would be: mention of HAC/SQ should be totally dropped from the lede. In any event, certainly moved out of the first paragraph.

The accurate truth would be something like: Disney was intrigued by the original HAC/SQ fairytale from the mid-1800s, ever since the 1930s. A number of attempts were made to develop a movie starting in the late 1990s. A 2008 attempt faltered. The final effort in 2011 started with changing the title to FROZEN; by the end of plot development/changes in 2013 hardly any of the original SQ plot remained, just the general scandinavian setting.

But that sounds too detailed for the lede. And hard for us to agree on. Very difficult to come up with something simple to say that is not likely to be misleading.

They started with HAC/SQ, but changed it and changed it until almost none of the original plot was left. That seems to be the simple truth, but I don't know how to put it in that article, appropriately.-71.174.190.122 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Quoting the end credits of the movie: “story inspired by ‘The Snow Queen’ by Hans Christian Andersen”. Many tales and stories adapted by Disney were treated more or less accurately, but independently of their degree of fidelity to the original plot, the source of inspiration has always been referenced as such. “Tangled” was inspired by the Brothers Grimm “Rapunzel”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” by Victor Hugo’s book, and, to take as an example a more drastic change, “The Lion King” is also loosely inspired by Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. In all of these cases, as in countless others, the story responsible of being the very first source of inspiration for the movie has always been credited, both in the movie credits and in its Wikipedia page. Why would this case be an exception?Ninahi8 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frozen (2013 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Mention of sequel (which for all we know has been quietly cancelled) in lead?

It was announced two years ago and one of the cast said last March that recording would begin that month? Recording for the first film began thirteen months before release, so if we assume a similar schedule either this statement was inaccurate or the film is coming out soon. But the confirmed sources are all so old that I'm kinda inclined to think the sequel has bee in development hell this whole time and isn't happening for the foreseeable future. If so, should we keep discussion of a sequel of dubious status out of the lead? (Note that I'm not saying anything about inclusion in the body, nor am I saying we should add any text to the article, so please don't accuse me of "original research" as happens every time I bring this kind of thing up.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It appears that she's walked back those comments as of last September, saying that she hasn't started recording yet. I think it's okay to leave it as it is, or add a small note mentioning that it's still in pre-production. MidnightObservation (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Concur. I think the current lead is fine. If you look at the development history of every Disney animated film (including Frozen), they all go through difficult periods where they spend months thrashing around in frustration trying to find a workable plot. You can tell in retrospect when those periods occurred because (1) the production team fell completely silent about their progress on the film and dropped off the radar for a long time, and (2) years later, after a successful release, they talk publicly about all the years of grueling work they had to go through. Notice how Disney is still making public noises every now and then about all the other stuff that they are working on: the Frozen Broadway musical, the cruise ship musical, the feature film version of A Wrinkle in Time (Jennifer Lee's pet project), Frozen Northern Lights, the untitled Christmas special, etc. The overall impression one gets (although we can't state this on Wikipedia because it's speculative) is that the company is trying to keep this media franchise alive and buy the production team time to figure out the sequel's plot. Look carefully at Jennifer Lee's comments at the end of this article from November 2016. Notice how she's referring to the project as if it's still active, but she's being careful to not say anything about how far they have actually gone with development (similar to Del Vecho and Buck's comments). --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Bell later stated that she had previously misspoke when she said that she had "started recording". She had, but not for the sequel movie. She had actually begun recording for the Christmas special, which was now called "Olaf's Frozen Adventure"(or something like that). However, as of December 2018, Disney has announced what appears to be a firm release date of November 27th, 2019 for Frozen 2. Bell has also stated that she's finished recording all her parts for the movie.Gcronau (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Perceived LGBT parallels

I removed this from § Perceived LGBT parallels that used "Geal, Robert (June 1, 2016). "Frozen, Homosexuality and Masochism". Film International. Retrieved February 17, 2017." as a reference because it appears to be a self published source and WP:FRINGE theory about stuff that the author perceives to be in the film where he argues the writers didn't handle it correctly. The section already describes the issue of some people seeing something and others basically saying was not the films intent. Basically starts by asserting as a given that Elsa is a homosexual character and argues from that. Expansion on one side of this issue is giving unnecessary undo weight to some minor issue in how people perceive the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit does not relate to a self-published source, but is from a peer-reviewed academic journal. Film International is described by Wikipedia as "a bimonthly academic journal". Here is a link to the journal demonstrating the source: http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/view-issue,id=3199/) It is therefore an established academic argument (although, like all arguments, partial). I have not found any other peer-reviewed academic articles addressing the issue of the film's homosexual subtext. The other comments about this subtext in this section are blog and filmmaker opinions, rather than academic analysis. My existing edit also does not establish Elsa's homosexuality as "a given", but positions the claims within the context of one academic source - "Geal argues..." I am happy to further foreground this partiality by altering "Elsa's female homosexuality" to "Elsa's potential female homosexuality" or "Geal claims that Elsa's female homosexuality" if that will clarify this. Some people might consider the homosexual subtext to be a fringe theory. However, this section already addresses this issue, but currently only from a non-academic position. Antonio Gramsci (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This describes the journal. They state "We are committed to representing the author’s voice authentically, without imposition of our personal ideas or opinions." There is no peer review, it is just a place for people to publish their own original thought. WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". No indication that Robert Geal is an established expert who is well published or that Intellectbooks itself is a reliable source in of itself. Also to reiterate, the current section is well-balanced showing both sides of the controversy. Additional discussion and additional opinions adds nothing to what is already there and overweights one side of the controversy over the other. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The quoted section from the above "this" which describes the journal (actually the journal's publisher) makes no mention either way about peer-review, so I am not sure where that conclusion comes from. The publisher's "publish with us" page (http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/repository/index/) states that "All of our journals welcome unsolicited submissions of academic articles consistent with their aim and scope. Publication is subject to peer-review and needs to follow Intellect’s style guide." A PDF of the peer-review process is included on that page. There is much mention about how Intellect journals contribute to the REF - they are a respected academic publisher. The following quote about a self-published expert is therefore irrelevant. The current section is well-balanced, yes, in terms of both sides of the "argument". But the only published academic voice on this "argument" is currently not included. I suspect an ideological bias here - a concern that "one side" is overweighted, and a focus on "the author’s voice authentically, without imposition of our personal ideas or opinions" which had previously been described as a fringe theory, despite that theory being the subject matter of the subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The current section is well-balanced and that addition gives excessive weight to an issue which is a minor issue in the article as a whole and currently covered sufficiently to get the main info across to the readers. Even accepting that the addition is peer reviewed in an academic journal the additional info, scholarly or not, is still just one more opinion on the issue and adds no value to this article. My personal ideological bias here is to keep the article neutral on issues of controversy and not give one side of the issue more weight than is warranted by the totality of reliable sources about the issue. The article is fine as it is in this subsection. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, I am new to editing on wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the next stage should be here. I believe that a third party is required, because I keep countering your rejections but you then add another. The fringe and self-published issues have been refuted. The problem, now, apparently, is that mention of the peer-reviewed discussion about this issue "adds no weight to this article" and that it "give[s] one side of the issue more weight than is warranted by the totality of reliable sources about the issue". I would refute both of these claims - Firstly, it does add weight, because it demonstrates that a controversy in the blogosphere is worthy of academic discussion, and that peer-reviewed academics consider that the controversy about LGBT issues in the film is not merely something of concern to interested and potentially irrational parties, but is also something worthy of approaching in a sober, considered academic manner. Media and film students, for example, may wish to address the issue in their assignments, and so adding a link to a credible academic discussion about the issue will be very valuable to them. Secondly, articulating and referencing different approaches to a controversy does not necessarily mean taking a particular side. The subsection is about an existing controversy, so that opinions about it are likely to be controversial, in one way or another. Wikipedia's neutrality is not hampered by explaining and referencing academic voices about a controversial matter, in fact I don't see how such a voice can threaten wikipedia's neutrality. I agree that the article is "fine", but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved. As I say, I think that our dialogue is unlikely to resolve this, so can you make a suggestion about how a third party might help? Antonio Gramsci (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you wish to continue this. My objection stands per what I stated. Additional discussion about something only slightly related to the movie Frozen as a whole is not an improvement to the article. A controversy exists, said controversy is adequately described with good sources references, no need to explore the details more than is already in the article as that is not what this Wikipedia article is about. There may be other appropriate articles on Wikipedia more suited to the content you wish to add, this article isn't it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will do that, as there seems to be a somewhat arbitrary nature about how it is decided that your "objection stands" - I take it that you have an objection, but it doesn't seem reasonable (or neutral, as you had it earlier) that you decide that it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I explained why I don't think this belongs in the article. If you wish to include it gain consensus on this talk page to do so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've requested a WP:3O (I hope I've done it right) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talk • contribs) 21:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You may wish to look at LGBT themes in speculative fiction and see if it would add to that or related articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and Antonio Gramsci: I am going to try to resolve this conflict. The questions as I understand it:

  1. Is this a self-published source? There is no real evidence to clearly support that this is a self-published source. Film International despite their lack of a shiny Wikipedia article is a creditable publication with a editorial staff, publications in english going back to at least 2003, and in Swedish to 1973. Nonetheless, Robert Geal is a lecturer at an accredited university and previously published in 2 other even more credible publications. And the material is presented as opinion to boot.
  2. Is the treatment balanced or does adding this source put undue weight on one side? This is a much harder question. And Geraldo Perez makes a good point. I need more time to examine it. Bear with me.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. First, I must say this addition coming from a possible WP:SPA makes it very suspicious. Antonio Gramsci, this sort of insertion of controversial material from an editor with no edit history are going to be met with resistance. Perhaps, consider demonstrating good faith by making other contributions to Wikipedia in areas outside of this article. Geraldo Perez has shown good judgement in assuming good faith. With that said, I would have to agree that this material does warrant inclusion but requires some copy editing, scaling down and toning down. Here is my train of thought if your interested:

Extended content
  • This article is over 14000 words covering every little minutiae of this movie. It contains a lead with zero criticism and body with endless praise (deservedly IMO). It's critical response section has 3 paragraphs of high praise, 1 paragraph of luke warm review which ends in the only clearly negative review: "However, she referred to the film as "cynical" and criticized it as an "attempt to shake things up without shaking them up too much."
  • The paragraph immediately following that is not a criticism of the film but only of Lino DiSalvo's comment.
  • Now, the paragraph in question: first it defines two opposing arguments ("that Frozen promotes normalization of homosexuality" vs. that it "represents a positive image of LGBT youth"). It then gives Lee's defense which I interpret as defending the positive aspects and appropriately does nothing besides mention the other side as it is contrary to accepted "2013 point of view" as per WP:FALSEBALANCE
  • However, the same argument for exclusion cannot be made for Robert Geal's claims as he is essentially the WP:BESTSOURCE on the matter as the only academic to have studied the matter and his argument seem completely separate. But without access, I cannot judge that. But it at least deserves mention.

The original inserted text is unacceptable in tone and length. No one with a few publications should be referred to as "scholar" on Wikipedia as far a I know, see WP:PEACOCK. That lends them undue authority. It also has too much detail. I instead propose the following compromise:

Robert Geal has argued that while the film represents homosexuality in an ostensibly non-discriminatory manner, it undermines this potential through a range of cultural prejudices that reinforce conservative notions about sexuality and gender; whereas Elsa's female homosexuality is rendered visually pleasurable to a male gaze, male transgressions of heterosexuality are coded in various negative ways.

That is all a newly published work deserves. Perhaps with time other review of the literature will reveal more detail on the matter.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Thank you for your investigation and evaluation of the issue. I still disagree about inclusion of this information. A part of the problem is that this film is generally seen by most people and also the writers to not be about homosexuality at all in any way, it is a story about love between two sisters and not in an incestuous way. Some small percent of the audience, because of seeing no love interest for the main character, presume because of that that the character, Elsa, is gay. It is widely acknowledged that the film does have thematic elements that resonate with various marginalized people including gay people among others and that has led to people, as described in the controversy section to see gay elements in the film, some positive and some negative. Geal is just another person who sees homosexuality represented when that is not what the film is about and then goes on to criticize the portrayal as basically not being done correctly based on current cultural norms. Geal is no more reliable or insightful than any other critic about his opinions and he is basically going off on a tangent that basically adds no real value to the controversy section. Female homosexuality is not shown in this film so any statement presuming that it is and then expanding on that really has nothing to do with this film. The assertion that Elsa is gay, taken as a given by Geal and the basis of his analysis, is basically a WP:FRINGE view of the character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Geraldo Perez, I am not unconvinced by your argument. Can you site sources for "this film is generally seen by most people and also the writers to not be about homosexuality at all in any way." If so, clear evidence of that is likely to convince me to change my opinion as Geal's singularity is suspicious. However, the idea of homosexual parallels is prevalent in popular culture and ignoring it without clear treatment is a disservice to NPOV. I have not seen the movie, which gives me a rare and unique unbiased opinion. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has interesting incites: Talk:Frozen_(2013_film)/Archive_2. It explains how the section was originally created.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64: That archived discussion covers the background. As for referenced support of my generalization statement, the entirety of the whole article as it is now, statements by the writers and actors and the reviews by critics. Sisterhood is the key theme and driver for the movie. § Writing goes into that a fair amount with good references to support that. No mention of gay themes at all in the film creation. § Casting also covers the sister theme from the cast perspective. § Critical response shows no major critics see any gay themes. Gay themes are a perception of some of the audience as covered in § Perceived LGBT parallels which reflect the compromise from the archived discussion. Even there most of the references see Elsa as a metaphor but not a gay character directly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The archived discussion is interesting, particularly in the sense that part of the argument is about the legitimacy of the claimants. A peer-reviewed academic voice could therefore contribute towards legitimacy. The main issue, here, tough, is about thinking how film operates, in an ontological manner, especially from an academic perspective. Feminist film theory, psychoanalytic film theory and queer theory (see wikipedia pages), each of which inform Geal's argument, is not especially concerned with whether there is a "mention of x themes [...] in the film creation". These approaches conceptualize film making as partly unconscious activity, in which filmmakers encode various internalized biases into their work. The repeat mention of the male gaze, above, devised by Mulvey, is an example of this - a director does not consciously think that female characters should be punished for the way that she is objectified by the camera. Instead, the director in that example is motivated by unconscious castration anxiety. This is all very controversial and subject of much debate in academic circles. Geraldo Perez no doubt does not think that film operates in this way. But many film theorists do, and Geal's paper is an example of this kind of academic thinking, applied to the film in question here.

Antonio Gramsci (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and (Janweh64) and Geraldo Perez I forgot to add that I am happy with the compromise that Janwej64 has suggested. I will endeavor to make some other edits here and there as and when time allows. I have been teaching on homosexual themes in Frozen, and thought it would be useful to add mention of the only academic account of the issue that I have been able to findAntonio Gramsci (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Antonio Gramsci:, can you quote some of the relevant parts of Geal here. It would be nice to make sure he is not some crazy nut. Just very short excerpts.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64:Here are the first couple of paragraphs: Disney’s animated phenomenon Frozen has been criticized by America’s religious right for its homosexual subtext which allegedly advocates non-Christian values to impressionable audiences. This paper does not dispute the presence of such a subtext, but argues that the film’s gay codings, rather than celebrating and encouraging homosexuality, invoke bigoted stereotypes, negative psychoanalytic categories and masochistic cinematic conventions. The film represents homosexuality in an ostensibly non-discriminatory manner, but undermines this potential through a range of cultural prejudices and conventionalized conservative cinematic techniques. The last of these elements entails the film’s most sinister approach to homosexuality, reflexively linking a masochistic representation of its gay-coded characters with the ideological passivity of cinematic spectatorship.

Frozen celebrates masochism both narratively and visually, joyously singing about the disavowed sexualities of, and threats to, its characters whilst simultaneously thematising realist cinema’s central ontological ideological project, inscribing spectators into “the pleasure of […] movement and fixity and movement again, from fragment […] to totality (the jubilation of the final image)” (Heath 514) by narrativising the principle that the “drama of vision becomes a constant reflexive fascination in films” (514). As Kristoff says, when he first hears Olaf the snowman’s joyous fantasy about the summer that will kill him, “somebody’s gotta tell him”. The same is true with cinema – somebody (the filmmakers) has/have to reveal the medium’s masochism, and indeed has/have to inscribe this revelation into the pleasure of unpleasure and the subsequent cathartic resolution of that revelation’s threat. So, just as Olaf is able to survive and enjoy his unpleasure, so too is the cinematic spectator. Both stage and enjoy the masochistic dramas of vision and of narrative.

Heath, S. (1985) ‘Jaws’, ideology and film theory in Nichols, B. (ed.) Movies and methods volume II. London: University of California Press, pp.509-514.Antonio Gramsci (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: and @Geraldo Perez: Any progress on this? Are we in limbo here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talk • contribs)

@Antonio Gramsci: {{re}} only works if you use it with ~~~~ at the same time. Geraldo Perez and I did not know you left a message because you did not sign it.

As it stands now, your addition would be considered very close to plagiarism and copyright violations. First propose a version that is not a policy violation and we can discuss.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: and @Geraldo Perez: Yes, apologies, I keep forgetting to add that signature. I would be happy with a compromise along the lines you suggested, Janweh64, something like

Robert Geal has argued that while the film offers an ostensibly progressive vision of homosexuality, it perpetuates conservative notions about sexuality and gender; whereas Elsa's female homosexuality is rendered visually pleasurable to a male gaze, male transgressions of heterosexuality are coded in various negative ways.

I take your point about the term "film scholar", can you suggest a more neutral term that would demonstrate that this is an academic claim without the need to look up the source? Antonio Gramsci (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Writing for Film International, Robert Geal.....
Are you sure nothing else is copied? Anything copied needs to be in quotes. And find a different word for ostensibly, word choice is artistic expression and therefore protected by copyright.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64: and @Geraldo Perez:Nothing else copied, I suggest superficially instead of ostensibly, so

Writing for Film International, Robert Geal has argued that while the film offers a superficially progressive vision of homosexuality, it perpetuates conservative notions about sexuality and gender; whereas Elsa's female homosexuality is rendered visually pleasurable to a male gaze, male transgressions of heterosexuality are coded in various negative ways.

Antonio Gramsci (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Antonio Gramsci: Go for it. The page has pending changes protection any now. So no reason not to.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64:OK, will do, thanks Antonio Gramsci (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

On 25-Feb-2017, many levels up and back, user Janweh64 wrote: "can you quote some of the relevant parts of Geal here. It would be nice to make sure he is not some crazy nut." Sorry, but on reading the 2 supplied paragraphs from Geal, I'm voting for "extremely self-indulgent delusional overly-obsessed-with-the-concept-of-masochism crazy nut". YMMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcronau (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I changed "Several conservative Christian commentators" to "A few conservative Christian commentators" because the massive array of source articles provided all seem to revolve around the same two statements from Kevin Swanson and Kathryn Skaggs. Not only are they only two, bu as a Mormon, Skaggs is not exactly a mainstream Christian, and Swanson is a notorious extremist whose views have been denounced by several influential conservatives including Mike Huckabee). Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frozen (2013 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frozen (2013 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Frozen (2013 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Second animated CGI musical film

Frozen is the second animated CGI musical film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.223.244.9 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Commercial analysis section

If at least 90% of this section was removed the article would be improved. It's just a bunch of random quotes from critics who thought that the next big Disney movie was gonna make a lot of money, like they all inevitably do. Who needs that cruft? It is offtopic and boring. Just mention the metacritic score of 74 and it should be rather obvious what most critics thought of it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Don't you agree that we need to weed out all this irrelevant fancruft, and get rid of all this hagiographic puffery? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: I disagree. The section is an analysis section, gives the analysis of why successful, is not original research and is backed up with reasonable sources. I don't find the section off topic and boring at all, I find it very informative and a good addition to this article. Level of detail is similar to detail in other sections so it is not overweighted. Randomly cutting sections out to make it significantly shorter does not serve to improve this article. Not to say that the section can't be improved, everything can, but making it significantly less informative is not the way to do it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: As an encyclopedia we don't do "commercial analysis" of movies, but we may have a section about a movie's reception. The level of detail in other sections is also totally wrong, we should get rid of all the fancruft. I noticed you have reverted again, but there is no justification for including this offtopic nonsense. Having me delete some of the worst stuff is better than ending up with {{advert}} and {{npov}} and {{fancruft}} tags on the article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: As an encyclopedia we put useful information in articles that is backed with reliable sources. We the editors of Wikipedia don't do any analysis at all on anything per WP:NOR, but there is nothing that says we can't report on what reliable sources say. Section is useful, informative and well sourced. Anyway see what others have to say. Proposals to make major changes to the article will require consensus and two people don't form one. I reverted because you made a change and I disagreed. See WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO until dispute resolved. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: First of all, you need to stop reverting, and you need to explain yourself better. Your inclusion has been reverted, the burden is on you to justify its inclusion. The bold edit has been reverted, now it is time to discuss. Stop misusing WP:TWINKLE in a content dispute, you are not allowed to do that.
Why do you want to include stuff like: "He also said that what people could infer from the film had "blow[n] [him] away."?
Why do you want to include the random guess of a non-notable movie critic about the amount of money the movie would make?
Why do you want to include a sentence like: "For a company whose foundation is built on animation, an opening like this is really great."
(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why would: "In November 2014, Menzel claimed that a feature-length sequel was in development.[383][384][385] However, on December 1, when the subject came up again during an interview on Today, she said, "You know, I have no idea. I just assumed that because it's so successful that's what they're up to!"" be useful information now that we have official confirmation that a sequel is being made? It would be really stupid of them if they wouldn't make a sequel because it was a huge commercial success, and speculation about a sequel started as soon as people saw the first movie. I don't see why we would need to include speculation and its retraction even after we've received official confirmation. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
In the case of some film articles, when there is a lot of debate in reliable sources about why a film was so commercially successful (and why it might not have reached a certain mark), we do include a Commercial analysis section. I started the matter years back and it took off, with editors copying the style. The Star Wars: The Force Awakens article is another copy of the style, although I did help out with the Commercial analysis section of that article. As for the article in question, I agree with the cuts you made here, here and here. As noted at Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 3#The Franchise potential section and Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 4#Article size, Coolcaesar kept expanding and expanding the article and there were some concerns with that. Frozen (franchise) was created at some point. I'm not sure who added the text you removed, but it might have been Coolcaesar. Coolcaesar will no doubt want to weigh in on this dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, you can ask WP:FILM to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Frozen (2013 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

DreamWorks everywhere...

Can someone please ensure that no one inserts “by DreamWorks” anywhere in this article? Some people just love that company so much that they are willing to get blocked for it. It is really irritating.  Anchorvale T@lk  08:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Music credit in infobox

I am well-aware that the infobox instructions say score composer only but this doesn't make sense in a musical where the major source of music is the songs not the score. I think WP:IAR applies in this case. See other examples of filmed musicals such as My Fair Lady (film), The Sound of Music (film) or Oklahoma! (1955 film) where practice is to list the songwriters. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also looking at the talk page archives for the infobox it appears that there is some support for treating musicals differently from non-musical films in that the song composers in musicals have a major credit at least equal and sometimes higher to the score composer whereas in non-musicals the credit for songs is usually a minor credit. The current instructions are not taking into consideration the unique role songs play in a musical but reflect the minor role songs play normally in most films. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

See also this relevant RfC at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 31 § RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs? Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:ElsaAnnaFrozen.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: Copyvios of Mw The Walt Disney Company's character Elsa. Category:Elsa (Disney) too, once empty. 
Deletion request: link

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

Gross

Forzen has gross $1.290 billion you can see this List of highest-grossing films Whitch also have the sources witch I been trying to add.Fanoflionking 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Kai and Gerda

Stephen J. Anderson and Edie McClurg are credited as Kai and Gerda in the film, which are, of course, the names of the children in the Andersen story. There should probably be a clear statement who they are. I don't believe their names are ever uttered in the film. I'm guessing they are trolls, but I haven't seen anything stating as such on the Internet. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

They are service staff and are minor roles. It is a callout but nothing more than that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Elsa's Name

I thought of something today that others might find interesting. It definitely qualifies as OR, which is why I'm confining it to the talk page. In the original story, I'm fairly certain that the Snow Queen was identified as simply that, "The Snow Queen", she had no actual name. However, for the movie, they picked the name "Elsa" for this character. But why Elsa? Granted "Elsa" and "Anna" make a nice balance with each other. Both 4 letters, both 2 syllables, both vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel, but did the writers have anything else in mind? Now consider the 1966 play and 1968 movie about the royal family of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and also consider Joy Adamson's 1960 book _Born Free_. In that context, Queen Elsa literally becomes "The Lion in Winter".Gcronau (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

World in Kingdom Hearts III

Why wasnt the mention of Arendelle being a world in the game mentioned? IHaveNoIdeaForAName (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian and Sámi inspiration

It is stated that hot springs is one example of a typical cultural Scandinavian element. This is not true. It is not typical for Scandinavia, but rather for Iceland, which is not part of Scandinavia. 213.52.102.62 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Geographically correct, but culturally, and per general English language usage, Scandanavia includes Iceland because of the close cultural ties. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Scandinavia is generally regarded as the Scandinavian Peninsula; being Norway and Sweden, while also including Denmark which was only controversial in medieval times due to border ambiguity and constant geopolitical dispute that riddled the history of the nation. However, Iceland is Scandinavian by virtue of the fact that its original human settlers were contemporary scandinavians with the arguable possibility of small lesser-known germanic tribes; as was said, definitely not located within Scandinavia. Much in the same way that the English Colonies in the americas were not in the locale of Britain but were still incontrovertibly British. That's the 'why' of it. Luxnir (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The prophecy?

Hello there, I have just read through the entire Development section fo this article and am surprised that tehre is no mention of the 'prophecy' that is featued as a major plotline in many fo the cut songs- the idea that there was this prophecy that one sister would be the 'HEIR / AIR' and the other would be the spare. And Elsa would be the heir to the throne, and also the cough cough air as in be in control of the elements. At least this is my understanding from those few deleted songs that speak about it - Spring Pageant and Life's Too Short. The prophecy was “a ruler with a frozen heart will bring destruction to the kingdom of Arendelle.” Originally Elsa was had frozen her heart due to being scorned on her wedding day and she began to attack Arendale. Then Kristoff stepped in and saved the day and finally Hans has a psychopathic twist and triggers a dengerous avalanche, revealing that he is infact the prophecy.[1][2] Could be worth mentioning in the article. :)

--Coin945 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://ew.com/movies/2017/03/29/frozen-original-ending/
  2. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com.au/frozen-original-ending-plot-2017-3?r=US&IR=T
I don't think adding significant information about stuff that wasn't in the finished film belongs in the article unless it somehow leads to why something was in the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2020

Director of frozen film is Stacee Willis Sarcake (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No it's not. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Origins of the name Arendelle or Inspirations for the Kingdom of Arendelle

I posit that we should make an addition to the arty due to a very persistent mistake that is very often made when people refer to this film in the context of real world associations. This is really an issue of material fact that has pervaded much of the fandom of this film series as far as I've seen since the first film's release. The issue surrounds there being an unfounded assertion that, simply because the names are the same, the inspiration for the Kingdom "Arendelle" came from the municipal port of Arendal (this is because of a freelance article published in Conde Nast Traveler, which is a near-plagiarized regurgitation dressed as a paraphrase of a blog post from 4 months earlier on a then-rising single mom travel blog called The Fairytale Traveler) or even from the Cornish-Norman family of Nobles in Normandy, when in actuality the name is that of a figure in Norse legend who is associated with winter, ice, light, and, more specifically, the light of a new dawn. Disney producers, artists, and creative development specialists have never made any statement as to the origins of the name specifically, but nearly every phase of creation and production has stated explicitly that they were inspired by "the western Fjordlands of Norway", and even sent the entire creative staff to the Ice Hotel just for some time to make "observations of how light reflects and refracts on snow and ice". (Disney's "Story Behind the Story of Frozen". Considering this, there are several features in the film itself that militate against any conclusion that the far-south municipality was causal to the use of "Arendelle" by disney, such as the true-to-life rendition of St. Olaf's Cathedral, for Elsa's coronation, which is located in Balestrand, Norway, which is a whole 508 KM away (which is more of a distance than travelling across the entire country at its widest point from eastern border all the way to the western shore) from this fairly small port town of Arendal that was formed by a little less than 30 people during the tail end of the industrial revolution and thus has no historical appeal to the period referenced in the Frozen franchise unlike the old world of the Western Fjordlands from which its creators indicated their inspiration drew. Nonetheless, the homophonic name is enough alone to convince a few, but it's objectively reasonable at this point to deduce that the connection to the two is a serious leap of assumption. HOWEVER, there is a sort of tangential connection that likely lends more to the true inspiration from Nordic folklore than it does to a very prolific tourism campaign for the modern city of Arendel. The onomastic etymology of Arendelle (which almost certainly inspired the town founders' usage of it just as much as it did Disney's) is very simply a homage that has a clear and clever connection to the themes and motifs of the Frozen films. Norse stories are a very common source of names for a majority of scandinavian lands, cities, and even people.

Arendelle is an eponymous noun born from the name of the legendary germanic "lightbringer", and is, in other words, an archaic but still somewhat heard variation on the Old Norse name 'Aurvandill' (Old Norse pronunciation would've been something like "Aohrr-[bf or soft w]-ahn-[theel or thihl]", where the r is rolled of course.), who is a figure in Germanic folklore that is briefly depicted in the Eddas[1]. In Norse legend, the god Thor tosses Aurvandill's toe into the dark sky, which had frozen while the thunder-god carried him across the Élivágar rivers, and there it would form that bright star that remains during the dawn and that beckons it forth to bring the full force of the day, called Aurvandils-tá ('Aurvandill's toe') and is equated with the "morningstar" or "lucero"[2] in later Anglican and Romantic logoforms, respectively. In wider classical and medieval Germanic cultures, he was known specifically in the lore as Ēarendel or Arendelle in Old English and literally as Aurendil in Old High German.[3][4][5] His name is associated with light, ice or snow or crystal, and brightness, in a general sense, almost always in the context of the winter season (perhaps due to the significance in the folkish belief system of the scarcity of light in the winter months) and him being the morningstar associates him in the culture to being seen as a herald, bringing forth or announcing the coming dawn as it descends to Earth's horizon [see also the Lightbringer[6]; or mayhaps more simply because of the nordic legend surrounding the formation of the morningstar, where Thor's travels freeze the toe of Arvandill, and it enters the sky, becoming a star in this frozen form...). In some Asatru religious practices, Balder/Baldr is also given similar associations, mostly in the eschatological context.[7]

Oddly enough my own name, Luxnir, derives similarly from Aurvandill, however it is a romano-nordic neologism that shares the meaning of the eponymic lineage of Aurvandill without the winter/cold connotations associated therewith.

The proposition is to either wholly replace the rampantly promulgated yet unlikely and unproven association with the southern port town of Arendal, or neuter the language presenting the common Arendal association as fact and just juxtapose the association set forth supra without getting tangential or severely academic (in which case some proposals for how that could be done would be greatly appreciated, if for nothing else but to mitigate that headache that comes with forced super-concision) in a neutral fashion to the "Scandinavian Inspiration etc." section in the arty. What are the thoughts on this?

Source Reading : + The links above & the ref materials below. Luxnir (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Prose Edda, A. G. Brodeur's translation (New York: American-Scandinavian Foundation, 1916).
  2. ^ de Vries, Jan (1957). Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte. 2 (1970 ed.). Walter De Gruyter.
  3. ^ de Vries, Jan (1962). Altnordisches Etymologisches Worterbuch (1977 ed.). Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-05436-3.
  4. ^ Simek, Rudolf (1984). Lexikon der germanischen Mythologie. A. Kröner. ISBN 978-3-520-36801-0.
  5. ^ Falluomini, Carla (2017). "Zum gotischen Fragment aus Bologna II: Berichtigungen und neue Lesungen". Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und Literatur.
  6. ^ Dumézil, Georges (1970). "Horwendillus et Aurvandill". In Lévi-Strauss, Claude; Pouillon, Jean; Maranda, Pierre (eds.). Échanges et communications. De Gruyter. pp. 1171–1179. ISBN 978-3-11-169828-1.
  7. ^ Lindow, John (2001). Norse Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-983969-8.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frozen_(2013_film)/Archive_5&oldid=1136743912"