Tangled vs. Frozen

[Atlantica]

Wow, this thread just came a steaming pile of nasty, thank you for that Lady Cluck.

Your posts were bordering on vile, for no real reason; your opinion isn't any greater or any more 'correct' than anyone else's. Just think about how you come across maybe before you post something.

[Lady Cluck]

And we know that a movie getting a sequel automatically means the original was really, really good, right? I mean, just look at Grown Ups 2. Oh, wait...

Are you illiterate? That wasn't my point at all. I was just rubbing it in that Tangled is ancient history and will never be heard from again Acting like Frozen and Grown Ups are of the same quality though...that's a new one. How delusional and bitter you are

Your posts were bordering on vile, for no real reason; your opinion isn't any greater or any more 'correct' than anyone else's. Just think about how you come across maybe before you post something.

Oh please. I doubt you stood up to people doing the exact same thing when Tangled was more popular than TPATF (hell, they were worse because of racist comments).

[Goliath]

Are you illiterate? That wasn't my point at all. I was just rubbing it in that Tangled is ancient history and will never be heard from again Acting like Frozen and Grown Ups are of the same quality though...that's a new one. How delusional and bitter you are

Not sure if trolling or deliberately trying to break irony meter...

[Lady Cluck]

Well I'll end this debate here since you apparently worship Selena Gomez...enough said.

[Atlantica]

I just don't understand you at all. All you seem to do is just be mean about everything, save for a few things you actually like yourself.

I never saw any of this Frog / Tangled debate you keep taking about, and unless you've dug deep and gone back through all, 3 I think it is, PATF threads as you weren't even resistered when either film was released, I don't see how you are the ultimate authority on it.

[Sotiris]

Lady Cluck, I understand you have strong opinions, and you're entitled to them, but there is no need to be rude and antagonistic when expressing them. We try to maintain a friendly and welcoming environment here and your recent posts have done nothing but create an atmosphere of hostility. Most importantly, calling someone delusional, illiterate and bitter is unacceptable. Personal attacks are not tolerated on this board. I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with our forum's rules and guidelines about online etiquette.

[Disney Duster]

1. I never understood the love for the Beast, either. He's a jerk with anger issues who imprisons an old man simply for entering his castle, then trades him off for his hot young daughter, whom he also keeps as a prisoner. He verbally abuses her, threatens to let her starve and then later acts like letting Belle go is an act of kindness while it's simply setting straight something that was wrong to begin with. The fact that Belle suffers from Stockholm syndrome does not make him any more decent. I'm not surprised you would think Elsa is a great character if you loved the Beast.

Belle does not suffer Stockholm syndrome when she chose to be a prisoner, but most importantly, when her captor changes first. His change, or his showing of the kindness that was always inside, is what makes her love him. And him letting her go is kind even if it was wrong to imprison her to begin with. To imprison is wrong, to set free is kind. It's that plain. You could even say Belle only truly loved him when he let her go, and that too would be a non-Stockholm feeling, as he wasn't her captor anymore. I don't even feel like he was her captor when he made the change to be kind to her before that. I was always confused that he "let her go" because I thought he was just keeping her there as a friend after his healing from the wolves scene with her.

It lays out everything you need to know about the origins of Rapunzel's hair and magic powers. The climax was also very logical. Some have said the healing tears was a copt-out, but did you really think Disney would let one of their main characters die? I thought it was a clever surprise ending, because I totally didn't see it coming, yet it was at the same perfectly logical.

Right! People forget Rapunzel's powers was explained and her healing Flynn with them at the end made sense. Also, I'm sorry about what I said before, Flynn cutting her hair before she healed him wasn't stupid, he just wasn't taking any chances and was being very loving and heroic.

[Mooky]

I don't see anything wrong with Tangled's intro and climax? The intro may not be to your liking due to its tone (some have said Flynn's voice-over was too light-hearted or too juvenile for what was happening on-screen), but at least it was coherent and it made sense. It lays out everything you need to know about the origins of Rapunzel's hair and magic powers. The climax was also very logical. Some have said the healing tears was a copt-out, but did you really think Disney would let one of their main characters die? I thought it was a clever surprise ending, because I totally didn't see it coming, yet it was at the same perfectly logical. So again, nothing wrong there.

Coherent, sensical, and logical? Not quite. For someone who seems so hung up on realism regarding Arendelle's state organization and royal family's approach to parenting, you kind of (purposely?) overlook the science / logic (or rather lack of) behind the Sun's 'teardrop' creating magical flower out of nothing and the very fact Gothel knew about it, let alone knew she should be singing to it. Not to mention the fact that Rapunzel can apparently conjure memories from when she was several months old, thus neatly resolving the plot. That's what bothered me about the prologue and the climax. Pretty outlandish concepts even for a fantasy movie, don't you think?

Also, it was clear from the beginning that Gothel was the villain, so what ill-defined characterization are you talking about?

There are several hints throughout the movie that Gothel might have harbored some feelings for Rapunzel, but nothing came out of it. She only became a full-on villain towards the end of the movie.

I would have preferred her to be more ambigious, but alas, Disney doesn't do subtlety.

They did it with Hans, didn't they?

What I do find problematic, though, is using terms like "butthurt" over something as benign as a different opinion on a movie. Why would anyone take something that trivial so personal?

I just call them like I see them. It's nothing personal other than I immensely enjoy the fact that tables have turned on Tangled fandom.

[Disney's Divinity]

I never saw any of this Frog / Tangled debate you keep taking about, and unless you've dug deep and gone back through all, 3 I think it is, PATF threads as you weren't even resistered when either film was released, I don't see how you are the ultimate authority on it.

Although I do think Lady Cluck has belly-flopped off the deep end, I remember the near-constant TP&TF criticisms after Tangled's release very clearly. Which is why I don't find the Tangled v. Frozen comparisons to be surprising at all.

[Goliath]

Well I'll end this debate here since you apparently worship Selena Gomez...enough said.

Actually, there never was a debate. You see, to have a debate would mean:

a.) You would have to present coherent en logical arguments which can be supported by facts, for me to refute

and

b.) I would have to take you seriously

Since neither are true, we didn't have a debate. I will only debate people who make sense. Trolls, I just laugh at them. My answers to them have the same degree of seriousness as their original posts.

[Lady Cluck]

Thank you Mooky and Disney Divinity.

[Goliath]

Coherent, sensical, and logical? Not quite. For someone who seems so hung up on realism regarding Arendelle's state organization and royal family's approach to parenting, you kind of (purposely?) overlook the science / logic (or rather lack of) behind the Sun's 'teardrop' creating magical flower out of nothing and the very fact Gothel knew about it, let alone knew she should be singing to it. Not to mention the fact that Rapunzel can apparently conjure memories from when she was several months old, thus neatly resolving the plot. That's what bothered me about the prologue and the climax. Pretty outlandish concepts even for a fantasy movie, don't you think?

Tangled is a fairytale (just like Frozen). In fairytales, magical and inexplicable things happen all the time, because that's in the nature of the genre. I don't complain about Elsa's magic powers. She can built castles, dresses and apparently even live snowmen out of nothing and that's okay because it's a fairytale. I don't see how that is any different from a magic flower coming from a teardrop which has healing powers. It's also made clear from the start of the movie that its healing works in different ways: Gothel gets younger from merely being in the presence of the flower while singing the special tune, while later on the magic is internalized by Rapunzel and goes to her hair. Which is not a big leap to the healing powers in her tears at the end of the film, which itself is also consistent with the 'magic sundrop'. So yes, it all *is* made-up stuff, but it's working logically *within the framework* of the story. Even though a story is a fantasy, doesn't mean it doesn't have to have internal logic.

As to your other points: how did Gothel know about the magic flower and how did she know she should sing to it? Is that important to the story? How did Jafar know about the Cave of Wonders, which was buried in the desert and how did he know he needed the magic scarabee to make the Cave appear? Those are things we take as a given, just like we accept that we don't know where Elsa's magical powers come from. At least Tangled has some kind of origins back-story. As for Rapunzel getting those memories: I do admit that seemed rather far-fetched, however, if I;m not mistaken, I remember reading that it is not entirely impossible, though it is incredibly rare.

There are several hints throughout the movie that Gothel might have harbored some feelings for Rapunzel, but nothing came out of it. She only became a full-on villain towards the end of the movie.

Uhm... she stole a child from her parents and kept it in captivity just so she could fulfill her own needs. And that was in the beginning of the movie. So she was a full-on villain from the beginning. Again, I agree, it would've been much better if Gothel had been a more ambigious character.

They did it with Hans, didn't they?

Not really, it's basically a good guy who turns out to be a bad guy. It's a surprise twist, but it's not subtle by any measure. He just turns from an all-out good guy to an all-out bad guy. Subtelty would have demanded ambiguity, to keep us guessing what kind of character he really was.

I just call them like I see them. It's nothing personal other than I immensely enjoy the fact that tables have turned on Tangled fandom.

You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Who talks like this about something as trivial as a movie? Who cares what other people's opinion on a film is? I just don't understand why people make it into a personal crusade. It seems so silly to me.

[MeerkatKombat]

I just call them like I see them. It's nothing personal other than I immensely enjoy the fact that tables have turned on Tangled fandom.

You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Who talks like this about something as trivial as a movie? Who cares what other people's opinion on a film is? I just don't understand why people make it into a personal crusade. It seems so silly to me.

I agree, Goliath.
Seriously, this 'my film is better than your film' is really silly.
I prefer Frozen but I can see why some people prefer Tangled. I still really like Tangled.
You prefer Frozen? Great. You prefer Tangled? Great. Both films have their merits and their flaws.
It's a matter of personal opinion. I don't know why we need to turn this into a battle of the ages. Aren't we supposed to be grown-ups? Or at least heading that way.

I'm not picking a fight with anyone. But this forum can get really catty at times and it just makes it unpleasant for everyone. It's a Disney forum for Pete's sake.

[Atlantica]

Both films have their merits and their flaws. It's a matter of personal opinion. I don't know why we need to turn this into a battle of the ages. Aren't we supposed to be grown-ups? Or at least heading that way.

I couldn't agree more

[Mooky]

Tangled is a fairytale (just like Frozen). In fairytales, magical and inexplicable things happen all the time, because that's in the nature of the genre. I don't complain about Elsa's magic powers. She can built castles, dresses and apparently even live snowmen out of nothing and that's okay because it's a fairytale. I don't see how that is any different from a magic flower coming from a teardrop which has healing powers. It's also made clear from the start of the movie that its healing works in different ways: Gothel gets younger from merely being in the presence of the flower while singing the special tune, while later on the magic is internalized by Rapunzel and goes to her hair. Which is not a big leap to the healing powers in her tears at the end of the film, which itself is also consistent with the 'magic sundrop'. So yes, it all *is* made-up stuff, but it's working logically *within the framework* of the story. Even though a story is a fantasy, doesn't mean it doesn't have to have internal logic.

As to your other points: how did Gothel know about the magic flower and how did she know she should sing to it? Is that important to the story? How did Jafar know about the Cave of Wonders, which was buried in the desert and how did he know he needed the magic scarabee to make the Cave appear? Those are things we take as a given, just like we accept that we don't know where Elsa's magical powers come from. At least Tangled has some kind of origins back-story.

You keep going back to the magic hair/tears concept and their functionality which I have no problem with whatsoever. As I said, my only issue is with the very creation of and knowledge about the flower which does not make sense at all. And just because the movie is a fairytale I don't have to take as given illogical, nonsensical crap some poor writer came up with and people ate up. You mention movie's internal logic, but it goes out of the window the moment you realize the movie is clearly set in some fantasy version of medieval Europe which should still operate on basic physics/chemistry rules, and AFAIK, the Sun has never given birth to a plant. I can accept purely magical things happening in a movie, but when you start mixing it with real-life science... eh, not so much. Maybe they should have set it on some faraway planet with a cast of aliens instead (and it still wouldn't make sense). This is all the more infuriating considering the source material was pretty straightforward in that regard. Also, how the hell did the king's men knew the flower would work on the queen when we were specifically told only Gothel knew about it and its effects? For all they knew, it could have killed the queen on the spot. I find it stupid and distracting, and it -- and along with the generally clichéd story and characters -- ruins my enjoyment of the movie.

Cave of Wonders comparison does not stand, because within the world of Aladdin its existence is obviously a known (although obscure) fact/story, passed down from generation to generation, as evidenced by conversation between Gazeem and Jafar. Even its internal design is adjusted for humans, and there are many man-made objects hidden within the Cave, so it's logical to conclude it didn't suddenly came into being. It's not hard to imagine that a sorcerer from years ago could have created it and put a bunch of stolen treasure in it.

As for Rapunzel getting those memories: I do admit that seemed rather far-fetched, however, if I;m not mistaken, I remember reading that it is not entirely impossible, though it is incredibly rare.

Yeah, I bet it's incredibly rare… It's also incredibly lazy writing.

Uhm... she stole a child from her parents and kept it in captivity just so she could fulfill her own needs. And that was in the beginning of the movie. So she was a full-on villain from the beginning. Again, I agree, it would've been much better if Gothel had been a more ambigious character.

That’s why I called it ill-defined. Why leave references to her caring about Rapunzel if you're going to take the easy villain route in the end?

Not really, it's basically a good guy who turns out to be a bad guy. It's a surprise twist, but it's not subtle by any measure. He just turns from an all-out good guy to an all-out bad guy. Subtelty would have demanded ambiguity, to keep us guessing what kind of character he really was.

There are multiple hints to his true nature in each of his scenes. It does not come off as that surprising if you re-watch the movie and look for the signs.

You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Who talks like this about something as trivial as a movie? Who cares what other people's opinion on a film is? I just don't understand why people make it into a personal crusade. It seems so silly to me.

I agree, Goliath.
Seriously, this 'my film is better than your film' is really silly.

Both films have their merits and their flaws. It's a matter of personal opinion. I don't know why we need to turn this into a battle of the ages. Aren't we supposed to be grown-ups? Or at least heading that way.

I couldn't agree more

For the life of me, I don't know why you guys are getting so worked up over this -- it's just normal, petty fan(boy) behavior. Are you telling me you were never, even for a second, glad that, say, a DreamWorks/Pixar/Fox movie got worse reviews or made less money than a Disney film? Or that an album of a musician you disliked failed to make an impact? Or that a TV show you hated got cancelled? Tangled fans deserved to see their favorite movie dethroned as Disney's latest greatest achievement after all the crap they spewed on PatF. Whenever Tangled came up in conversation, PatF and/or its individual elements were mentioned as a colossal failure of the year before (just a quick reminder: "Louis the failgator"). I've never witnessed comparisons of such nature between any two of Disney's other films (not even TLM vs. BatB), and I don't recall anyone stepping up to say, 'Hey guys, can't we just like both' back then, so I don't know where this sudden wisdom and maturity comes from, as those attacks were more mean-spirited than anything anyone has said in this thread.

But if it bothers you guys that much, you can always choose to ignore the "attacks", you know.

Again, it's nothing personal, but this thread is called Tangled vs. Frozen after all, so of course discussion point like this was bound to come up.

With that said, I'm withdrawing myself from this discussion. I don't know why I even wrote anything in the first place.

[frankf3]

@Mooky is right. When I started this thread months ago, I didn't intend to make this into attack post just for preferring one movie over each other. I regret calling it the thread "versus" now. I started this thread because I was curious from you guys about which of the two recent CG musicals you prefer and why since comparisons between the two movies have constantly been brought up.

Again, I really like both movies. I slightly prefer Tangled, but that doesn't mean I dislike Frozen and how popular it has gotten with the media. We should be happy that for many of us, Disney is making high quality animated movies once again.

If you like Tangled more, great. If you like Frozen more, that is great too. This is all just a matter of opinion and there is no "right" answer.

[Lady Cluck]

Whenever Tangled came up in conversation, PatF and/or its individual elements were mentioned as a colossal failure of the year before (just a quick reminder: "Louis the failgator"). I've never witnessed comparisons of such nature between any two of Disney's other films (not even TLM vs. BatB), and I don't recall anyone stepping up to say, 'Hey guys, can't we just like both' back then, so I don't know where this sudden wisdom and maturity comes from, as those attacks were more mean-spirited than anything anyone has said in this thread.

I couldn't agree more!

[ce1ticmoon]

Long time lurker, first time poster here. Maybe it's unwise for me to jump straight into the argument (haha), but here goes...

I don't understand the whole "butthurt" Tangled fans thing. What exactly is there to be "butthurt" about? That Frozen is on its way to $1.1 billion+ at the box office, while Tangled "only" made $600 million? I'm personally a bigger fan of Tangled (I think it's the "better" movie in most, but not all, respects), but I love Frozen as well, and I'm absolutely ecstatic that it has become the phenomenon that it is. Plus, I genuinely believe that the recent streak of good films coming from WDAS going back at least as far back as The Princess and the Frog have contributed to its success by building up good will for the studio. And I think Tangled was a particularly big player in that respect.

And Tangled fans shouldn't be "butthurt" regarding reception either, since for the most part, reception to the films themselves have seemed pretty equal to me. (Similar scores on RT, Metacritic, IMDB, and the like.) And going solely of anecdotal evidence, out of the people I know, I'd say there's a pretty even split between the people who prefer Tangled or Frozen. Granted, there were a lot more reviews proclaiming that Frozen was "the best Disney movies since ___." But I'm of the opinion that there were a handful of great movies between the Renaissance peak and now.

It's true, I have seen nasty arguments between fans of PATF and Tangled, and between fans of Tangled and Frozen on the net, but I'd always thought it was kind of weird. (The same way the battle between DC and Marvel fans is weird.) People on the net seem to identify so closely with these movies that they take comments on them to be comments on their person. Isn't taking pleasure on the "tables being turned" on Tangled fans pretty much the same thing?

You keep going back to the magic hair/tears concept and their functionality which I have no problem with whatsoever. As I said, my only issue is with the very creation of and knowledge about the flower which does not make sense at all. And just because the movie is a fairytale I don't have to take as given illogical, nonsensical crap some poor writer came up with and people ate up. You mention movie's internal logic, but it goes out of the window the moment you realize the movie is clearly set in some fantasy version of medieval Europe which should still operate on basic physics/chemistry rules, and AFAIK, the Sun has never given birth to a plant. I can accept purely magical things happening in a movie, but when you start mixing it with real-life science... eh, not so much. Maybe they should have set it on some faraway planet with a cast of aliens instead (and it still wouldn't make sense). This is all the more infuriating considering the source material was pretty straightforward in that regard. Also, how the hell did the king's men knew the flower would work on the queen when we were specifically told only Gothel knew about it and its effects? For all they knew, it could have killed the queen on the spot. I find it stupid and distracting, and it -- and along with the generally clichéd story and characters -- ruins my enjoyment of the movie.

I don't understand how the sun drop giving birth to the flower can't be explained away as part of the fantastical/magical element of the story. It makes just as much/little sense as the magic hair/tears concept or Elsa having ice powers. I'm not even sure it's supposed to be taken that literally. In the story, there is a magic flower with healing properties; it seems to me that Flynn's narration can be taken as the "legend" as to how it got there. It's just a way to make something that's inexplicable explicable.

As for the king's men knowing the existence of the flower and that it would work on the queen, I don't really see why it is difficult to swallow that as is. Perhaps only Gothel knew about it in the sense that she knew for sure that it exists, but it's not inconceivable that others knew about it as some sort of legend/myth. Flynn even says they were looking for a miracle. They tried everything, and out of desperation the went looking for some mythical/legendary flower. I certainly think you can make the case that they found the flower way too easily and that Gothel was unbelievably careless with it, especially considering she had it hidden from sight for hundreds of years. Heck, I would agree with you. It's a little too convenient. However, I don't have too much grievance with it considering this is just the short, cliff-notes version of the back story. We don't know all the details about how it happened. But we're given what we need to know to understand the main portion of the story that follows.

As for Rapunzel getting those memories: I do admit that seemed rather far-fetched, however, if I;m not mistaken, I remember reading that it is not entirely impossible, though it is incredibly rare.

Yeah, I bet it's incredibly rare… It's also incredibly lazy writing.

I agree that this is the weakest point in the story for me. Lazy? Maybe. But it was just incredibly difficult to understand. The first time I watched it, I was kind of confused. However, I think the implication in that scene is that she always had the memories. Humans actually have a lot more memories and information stored in their mind than they know, and they can't recover everything at will. The symbol of the sun was obviously something that Rapunzel had seen a lot as an infant. She didn't remember the symbol, and couldn't conjure the memories at will, but after being kidnapped by Gothel, Rapunzel had subconsciously been painting the symbol of the sun all of her life. Her trek into the kingdom then allowed her to realize this, thus triggering her memories as an infant.

Yes, I still do think it is a little too convenient. I would have liked it to be clearer, or the realization that she is the lost princess to come about in a different way. But I honestly find this to be the one weak link in a generally tight story.

Not really, it's basically a good guy who turns out to be a bad guy. It's a surprise twist, but it's not subtle by any measure. He just turns from an all-out good guy to an all-out bad guy. Subtelty would have demanded ambiguity, to keep us guessing what kind of character he really was.

There are multiple hints to his true nature in each of his scenes. It does not come off as that surprising if you re-watch the movie and look for the signs.

I agree that the hints are there, but only if you are looking for them. I've seen the film three times so far, but I'm still not 100% sure how I feel about the twist. What I do think, however, is that I wish he hadn't turned out to be a moustache-twirling bad guy that he became. I also think they missed an opportunity to have a movie with no real villain. (We need more of those from WDAS and Pixar.) I wish he could have been a misguided hero, making bad choices despite good intentions. That would have given him some much needed complexity (and would have made him redeemable).

[Disney Duster]

I was just rubbing it in that Tangled is ancient history and will never be heard from again

Tangled will still live on.

I just call them like I see them. It's nothing personal other than I immensely enjoy the fact that tables have turned on Tangled fandom.

The tables aren't turned. Both films are seen as among Disney's best and will be remembered and loved well.

[Avaitor]

No one forgot about The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin after The Lion King's massive success. Tangled will do fine.