candydog wrote:I always thought they were saving the title "Frozen" for a Walt Disney biopic.
You’re bad. = )
candydog wrote:
Anyway, does anyone here think that giving the film the title "Frozen" rather than keeping to a more traditional fairytale-style name (even though it made a bit of a departure from the story that inspired it, The Snow Queen) contributed to it's success? Would it have been as successful under the "Snow Queen" title?
I’m likely in the minority here on this one, but I’ve got no issue with the adjectival styling of the titles for this film or for
Tangled. The studio’s fairy- and folk-tale adaptations have gone further and further afield from the source material as times have changed.
Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and
Cinderella, for all their departures, generally bear more resemblance to the source material than the films of the ‘80s-‘90s renaissance, and the more recent films go even further afield—
Frozen, in particular, has so little in common with the story of
The Snow Queen as to be unrecognizable as an adaptation of that tale.
Foregoing the debate over which films alter their source material the most...
The market has changed an awful lot in the last quarter century. There are more entertainment options than ever, more competition for our attention and our dollars, with ever-increasing diversification and division in content and target audiences. I think titles like “Tangled” and “Frozen” are pretty amusing, but they connote differently than “Rapunzel” and “The Snow Queen”—they’re less fairy-tale specific, less traditional, less likely to evoke prior associations that cause potential audience to judge content before being exposed to it; they’re more ambiguous, more open to association and interpretation. If the change in titular styling gives one person in ten (or a hundred, or ten thousand) reason to reconsider his or her predisposition *not* to engage with the film, it’s done its job.