DVDizzy Forum

Sorry if this thread seems superfluous, but I felt the urge to discuss this topic.

Now we're just four months ahead the release of Frozen II, the sequel to Disney's biggest behemoth of all time. We all know how overexposed Frozen was during it's heydays and it's needless to declare that several people got sick of it. But regardless of how this sequel will probably revive the Frozen mania (or if it will surpass it's predecessor), one relevant notion is how Frozen was essentially the Revival era's The Lion King in terms of being the big blockbuster.
But one relevant question is whether Frozen was more exposed than The Lion King? As growing up in the 90's, The Lion King managed to mantain it's popularity during the era and it was overexposed, but being a young kid at the time I truly can't scrutinize if The Lion King was more exposed than Frozen. So the question is if truly Frozen was more exposed than The Lion King?

I think it was but that's mainly because the Internet didn't exist back then and Disney wasn't so big and so focused on franchising and cross-pollination as they are now.

Fair enough.

I agree with Sotiris. I think it’s hard to compare Disney of the 1990s to
Disney of today. It just had grown so exponentially since the 1990s (not to mention fandom has become much more mainstream).

I do think there were some comparably cringeworthy things Disney did back in the 1990s like making a sequel to every blasted movie they released, even when the story was crummy, the songs sucked and the animation was really, really bad.

With The Lion King, I think they milked it as much as they could back then with two sequels, theme park experiences and the like.

There was also the television show Timon and Puumba. Which I love.

DisneyFan09 wrote:So the question is if truly Frozen was more exposed than The Lion King?

We live in an era of not only instant gratification, but instant fatigue. It's easier to gauge a response to something online now than it was in personal experience twenty-five years ago. If anything, I feel the majority of exposure is in commentary from everyone else about Frozen rather than Disney's actual marketing of the film itself. Within a year of Frozen's release, social media has seen that trend where everyone loves the film ("OMG, can't stop listening to Let It Go!"), then everyone hates it ("OMG, Frozen is not as great as you all think it is!"), then everyone loves it again ("OMG, they're going to make a Frozen dark ride/Broadway musical/sequel!"), but mostly peppered in with everyone hates it ("OMG, everything is Frozen!") because in the age of the internet, we know we can just make some clickbait article or video like "Five Things Wrong With Frozen" or "This Fan Theory About Frozen Will Make You Rethink The Film!" to keep people talking. But again, the exposure feels more self-perpetuated by the fandoms rather than by Disney itself.

Comparably, both Frozen and The Lion King have seen the same number of projects coming out in the wake of their original film: two theme park stage shows (Legend of the Lion King & Festival of the Lion King / A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration & Frozen: Live at the Hyperion), a short film (Stand By Me / Frozen Fever), a television project ("Timon & Pumbaa" spin-off series / "Once Upon a Time" half-season adaptation), Broadway adaptations (4 years later for TLK / 5 years later for Frozen), and a sequel film (The Lion King II: Simba's Pride / Frozen 2). In terms of differences, Frozen got a full-fledged dark ride (Frozen Ever After) and another theatrical short (Olaf's Frozen Adventure), while The Lion King got a second sequel, multiple releases on home video, and that environmental cartoon that fortunately no longer plays at Epcot.

Albert

I remember the Lion King back in 1994 very well, as I was in my early 20's. It was everywhere but what I didn't see much of was any hate, people of all ages loved the film. I think the difference was the lack of internet culture. Its true internet has really made spewing hate more easy(sigh, just look at politics.) Its very easy and even fun to mock and criticize behind the safety of a screen. I also wonder if its a gender thing. Lion King was for boys so it was more tolerated by men/boys, but Frozen with its little girls singing everywhere and princess stuff all over stores made it an easier target of ridicule for them.

also yes Disney is just a much bigger and more invasive thing nowadays than in the 90s. Back then it was still seen as the smaller studio that was going up against the big boys like WB and Universal, so its successes where seen as novel and surprising.

unprincess wrote: I also wonder if its a gender thing. Lion King was for boys so it was more tolerated by men/boys, but Frozen with its little girls singing everywhere and princess stuff all over stores made it an easier target of ridicule for them.

This is what I've been thinking of as well because The Lion King pretty much has universal acclaim. Only on Disney sites like here does it get criticized for being overrated or having inconsistent humor whereas Frozen gets panned for so many things almost anywhere online, most of them relating to the fact that the film is centered around two women.

In general, women or "women's interests" get more criticism and there's been recent articles and studies on the Twilight phenomenon and how that franchise was also heavily panned by the media whereas male equivalents like Fast and Furious never get the same amount of flack. There's definitely a gender bias here which is evident in pretty much every aspect of life, not just entertainment.

yep! and yeah FATF franchise is just ridiculous! the only male franchises that Ive seen get any ridicule is Minions and Transformers...
Im very mixed about Twilight, I thought the 3 leads were creepy and unlikable but I liked it's supporting cast, mythology and world-building, lol.

unprincess wrote:yep! and yeah FATF franchise is just ridiculous! the only male franchises that Ive seen get any ridicule is Minions and Transformers...
Im very mixed about Twilight, I thought the 3 leads were creepy and unlikable but I liked it's supporting cast, mythology and world-building, lol.

From what I've seen of Minions, the demographics cater to all children regardless of gender. I've never felt it's very male-centric since I know many little girls who like it but I could be wrong here since I'm not too familiar with the fanbase for Despicable Me.

Here are some quotes about how misogynistic much of the Twilight hate actually was all because it deigned to introduce distinctively feminine elements into the mainstream. Much of the ridicule and backlash Twilight received can apply to Frozen as well so I'm posting them here.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/n ... enie-meyer

Chloë Leeson, editor of female-focused film website Screen Queens, says Twilight was “a series that girls claimed for their own” in a world dominated by culture made for men, by men. “It combined romance, fantasy and incredibly watered-down horror elements to create a story that wasn’t just a message for girls telling them how to behave, like a lot of teen movies. It was pure escapism and the fantasy elements allowed young women to take that wherever they wanted it to go, which goes against the grain of most media created by men.”

There’s a sense that, after a decade as cultural Marmite, the tide may now be turning in the favour of Twilight. In her apologetic 2018 video essay “Dear Stephenie Meyer”, film critic Lindsay Ellis described the backlash as “virulent bile that was not in proportion to Twilight’s badness” and theorised that society simply “hates teenage girls” and the culture they enjoy. She pointed out that much of the criticism directed at the movies and the books, of which she confesses to playing a part, came not from men, but from women wanting to distance themselves from a phenomenon so “unapologetically female” in its targeting.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/twilight- ... ust-sexist

This phenomenon was not exclusive to Twilight. Look at fandom and cultural responses to any fandom that is driven mostly by the desires and consumerist power of women, especially if they’re young. Romance novels get it all the time, as do rom-coms and crafting and the beauty world. Even pop culture and fandoms not coded as feminine or “girly” face this ire, as any woman who loves comic books, Star Wars, and video games can attest to. Yet what happened with Twilight felt like the grossest exaggeration of that anger. It wasn’t enough to mock Twilight: It had to be annihilated. We all contributed to that wave of unnecessary force on some level. I know I did. I think about that a lot.

What is so worthless about Twilight and by extension all stories like it to those who are still mad about it a decade later? Is it the single-minded adoration of love itself or its feminine aesthetic or how utterly unconcerned it is with appealing to notions of realism? Plenty of stories do that, and many of them do it with way less creative spark and genuine emotion than that first Twilight film. Hell, just look at 50 Shades of Grey. Do those angry voices still genuinely care about those issues that women were dissecting in Twi-fandom long before it went mainstream, or are they just easy crutches to lean against while they use the same gags about sparkling? If misogyny in film is such a worry for them, then I have plenty of Michael Bay movies to submit as evidence. Maybe, just maybe, the interests of women are a joke in and of themselves to such figures.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/11/21/ ... nie-meyers

There are few pop cultural products that our society likes to shit on more than the pop culture created for teenage girls, and Twilight circa 2008 was the pinnacle of that phenomenon. This was a franchise that was built for teen girls, marketed to teen girls, and loved by teen girls, and because of that, it became accepted common knowledge that all correct-thinking people could only despise and revile it. So when I look back 10 years later, I find it difficult to untangle my hatred of Twilight from my own internalized misogyny, and from my profound and at the time unexamined belief that anything made for teenage girls must inherently be less-than.

https://www.bustle.com/p/the-internet-h ... t-13047763

Look, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Twilight. Like so much of media, it romanticizes obsessive and controlling relationships and completely disrespects Native beliefs. If I remember correctly, however, most of the criticism back in the 2000's was less about Twilight as a vehicle for the white hetero-patriarchy, and more along the lines of "girls who like vampires are so stupid LOL." Many fans went from enjoying the series as 12 and 13 year old girls to viciously mocking it because they didn't want to seem vapid or (god forbid) girly. But now, Twilight fans are finally old enough and secure enough to point out that all that Twilight shame was gross and sexist and genuinely damaging.

https://qz.com/356249/fifty-shades-of-b ... fferently/

Seventy percent of female critics liked Twilight, and only 43% of male critics did. Stop to consider this: in a world run by women, Twilight is actually a good movie.

Makes sense. In a misguided attempt to be progressive, society in the 90s had pushed girls to see femininity as a symbol of weakness and aim to fit their desires so that they emulate boy's tastes more. "You hit like a girl" "That's sissy stuff" Girls who didn't mind their femininity and romance but also wanted to go on exciting adventures had the rough deal, because aside from specific stuff like Disney, Barbie, Sailor Moon or certain girl-aimed series, most girly girls in cartoons ended up being vapid, mean or useless damsels-in-distress, while the cooler more active girls were the nerds and the tomboys. I recall something like that occurred with Spinelli from Recess and Buttercup from Powerpuff Girls. In the Nicktoons it was the same, the pretty girlys were either incredibly dense or just bland love interests, or the rivals to the unpopular but smart Ginger / Eliza. I suppose there's a subversion with Angelica and Helga, both are mean but also pretty girly at times, and the most popular female characters of their shows.

It's not bad to focus on different type of girls, but I also think it's wrong to villanaje some girls who are more interested in fashion. It also takes a level of intelligence to know how to make clothes and color-coordinate.

I think stuff nowadays like Disney or My Little Pony has changed that for the better. And even some heroine-lead media from the past did manage to do this well (Anastasia, The Last Unicorn, WITCH, and even She-Ra).

No, I don't believe Disney has treated Frozen any differently than TLK. I think the difference is TLK is thought of as a boy's film and Frozen is thought of as a girl's film. Anything focused more on female characters than male characters that is popular is going to be derided in one way or another. I often hear people talk about "holes" in the film's plot or whatever, but you can do the same thing with the vast majority of films, including TLK.

thedisneyspirit wrote:Makes sense. In a misguided attempt to be progressive, society in the 90s had pushed girls to see femininity as a symbol of weakness and aim to fit their desires so that they emulate boy's tastes more. "You hit like a girl" "That's sissy stuff" Girls who didn't mind their femininity and romance but also wanted to go on exciting adventures had the rough deal, because aside from specific stuff like Disney, Barbie, Sailor Moon or certain girl-aimed series, most girly girls in cartoons ended up being vapid, mean or useless damsels-in-distress, while the cooler more active girls were the nerds and the tomboys. I recall something like that occurred with Spinelli from Recess and Buttercup from Powerpuff Girls. In the Nicktoons it was the same, the pretty girlys were either incredibly dense or just bland love interests, or the rivals to the unpopular but smart Ginger / Eliza. I suppose there's a subversion with Angelica and Helga, both are mean but also pretty girly at times, and the most popular female characters of their shows.

It's not bad to focus on different type of girls, but I also think it's wrong to villanaje some girls who are more interested in fashion. It also takes a level of intelligence to know how to make clothes and color-coordinate.

I think stuff nowadays like Disney or My Little Pony has changed that for the better. And even some heroine-lead media from the past did manage to do this well (Anastasia, The Last Unicorn, WITCH, and even She-Ra).

Funny you mentioned WITCH and Anastasia though since those were always two of my favorite things growing up. Maybe because of how balanced these characters were because they were bold and assertive without apologizing for their femininity.

Even today, much of this toxic attitude that puts down femininity is apparent because while it's socially acceptable for girls to be "tomboys" and play sports, dress like guys, like traditionally male-oriented stuff like cars, superheroes, etc., the inverse is not at all true. Boys who prefer more traditionally "feminine" things like playing with dolls, wanting to dress up, enjoying romance, not being sporty, etc. are often derided and mocked. Girls can like colors like blue with no issue but boys who like pink are generally derided. Similarly, no one will bat an eyelash if a girl is play-acting her wedding but if a boy did it, people would be not nearly as accepting. Even Halloween costumes are a good indicator because it's much more socially acceptable for a little girl to dress up as Harry Potter, Woody, Spider-Man, etc. whereas a little boy will usually get a lot of blowback if he wants to dress up or even like a feminine character like Belle or Barbie. The general theme in all of this is that femininity is something to be mocked and regarded as weak whereas more typical masculine traits ought to be embraced whether you're male or female.

This trend applies to adults as well because a male nurse or kindergarten teacher will get a lot more flack than a female police officer or doctor. There are certainly double standards for women in more typically male-oriented fields, sure, but while a female executive may not get the same amount of respect from her male peers, no one openly will deride her position the same way that stay-at-home dads or male caretakers will get mocked.

Escapay wrote:We live in an era of not only instant gratification, but instant fatigue. It's easier to gauge a response to something online now than it was in personal experience twenty-five years ago. If anything, I feel the majority of exposure is in commentary from everyone else about Frozen rather than Disney's actual marketing of the film itself. Within a year of Frozen's release, social media has seen that trend where everyone loves the film ("OMG, can't stop listening to Let It Go!"), then everyone hates it ("OMG, Frozen is not as great as you all think it is!"), then everyone loves it again ("OMG, they're going to make a Frozen dark ride/Broadway musical/sequel!"), but mostly peppered in with everyone hates it ("OMG, everything is Frozen!") because in the age of the internet, we know we can just make some clickbait article or video like "Five Things Wrong With Frozen" or "This Fan Theory About Frozen Will Make You Rethink The Film!" to keep people talking. But again, the exposure feels more self-perpetuated by the fandoms rather than by Disney itself.

Well said, Albert. Great write-up.

Regardless of this summary being relevant to each of their overexposure, we'll have to remember that both The Lion King and Frozen were released on particular different eras that were truly not only different for Disney, but for animation in general. What both movies have in common is both being the pinnacles of their eras (due to how the Revival has been frequently been seen as reminiscent of the Renessaince era, both movies have quite little in common besides having royalty within them).

The Lion King was the peak of it's period, yet it was followed by two movies that broke the mold and were controversial in their own right and therefore immediatly tarnishing Disney's reputation (regardless of how good both Pocahontas and Hunchback truly are), whereas the Revival era didn't see that immediate downfall after it's pinnacle and were followed by various strings of successes. Besides, every movie in the nineties was pretty much a big event with merchandise and promotion to a overwhelmingly degree (with the unfortunate exception of The Rescuers Down Under), more than what Disney does nowadays, so The Lion King wasn't particularly the lone exception in that regard.
Besides, yet no matter how loved the movies from the nineties are, it was pretty much Disney's most derivative and homogenous period and objectively more so than what Disney has been nowadays. So the formula was pretty much criticizable for that sole reason and made people sick of that formula and the overexposure each release got almost every year. So I think therefore people weren't fed up with The Lion King as the same way as with Frozen for that reason (a loose theory, but still).

Yet this Revival era has, no matter how much you dislike this fact, seen more variety and having Disney expanding their horizons with different genres and premises. The only features that has truly followed what you associate with the Disney musical formula has been the Princess movies (yes, no matter how you put it, it's unfortunately what they truly are), yet even they've followed a certain derivative pattern that has been criticized by Disney fans.
Besides, the animation industry changed rapidly after the post-Renaissance, as Disney was usually perceived of being the head of the studio and most studios trying to replicate their formula. Now the tables have turned and the formula that most animated movies tries to strive for is the DreamWorks/Pixar mold, regardless of Disney's recent string of successes. so Disney is not the pinnacle studio to look up to anymore.

Another thing that distinguish the Revival era is that we're getting actual sequels to some of their biggest hits, which was pretty much unthinkable during the days of the Renaissance or in Walt's time. If Frozen wasn't the behemoth that it was, I doubt that Disney would even bother to give it a sequel. At least Wreck-It-Ralph had a premise that just screamed sequel and was invigorating for Disney, while Frozen II will be invigorating for being an actual full-length sequel to a fairy tale. Due to fairy tales "happily ever after"-norm, it will be truly something new for Disney to do this, regardless of their previous cheapquels.

We can see that feminine contempt nowadays with the way people react to The Last Jedi and Captain Marvel.

Escapay wrote:We live in an era of not only instant gratification, but instant fatigue. It's easier to gauge a response to something online now than it was in personal experience twenty-five years ago. If anything, I feel the majority of exposure is in commentary from everyone else about Frozen rather than Disney's actual marketing of the film itself. Within a year of Frozen's release, social media has seen that trend where everyone loves the film ("OMG, can't stop listening to Let It Go!"), then everyone hates it ("OMG, Frozen is not as great as you all think it is!"), then everyone loves it again ("OMG, they're going to make a Frozen dark ride/Broadway musical/sequel!"), but mostly peppered in with everyone hates it ("OMG, everything is Frozen!") because in the age of the internet, we know we can just make some clickbait article or video like "Five Things Wrong With Frozen" or "This Fan Theory About Frozen Will Make You Rethink The Film!" to keep people talking. But again, the exposure feels more self-perpetuated by the fandoms rather than by Disney itself.

Comparably, both Frozen and The Lion King have seen the same number of projects coming out in the wake of their original film: two theme park stage shows (Legend of the Lion King & Festival of the Lion King / A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration & Frozen: Live at the Hyperion), a short film (Stand By Me / Frozen Fever), a television project ("Timon & Pumbaa" spin-off series / "Once Upon a Time" half-season adaptation), Broadway adaptations (4 years later for TLK / 5 years later for Frozen), and a sequel film (The Lion King II: Simba's Pride / Frozen 2). In terms of differences, Frozen got a full-fledged dark ride (Frozen Ever After) and another theatrical short (Olaf's Frozen Adventure), while The Lion King got a second sequel, multiple releases on home video, and that environmental cartoon that fortunately no longer plays at Epcot.

Sorry for bumping this thread, but I'm writing a new entry for my blog about the overexposure of Frozen. it okay with you that I use your thoughts as a part of that entry?

Sotiris wrote:I think it was but that's mainly because the Internet didn't exist back then and Disney wasn't so big and so focused on franchising and cross-pollination as they are now.

Well, to be fair, Disney used to be a huge company back in the 90's as well. It was the major animation studio in the business and every studio prior to 2001 never failed to outmatch it's success. But otherwise you're right.