Frozen II

[Candy-Bonita95]

I don't see wanting your daughter to have positive models growing up anywhere near the same vicinity as people who think Glinda the Good Witch and Harry Potter lead kids to Satan.

I was more referring to her comment about the Prince's kiss. And the Prince almost lives outside the main chunk of the film with the most thematic value that it makes her lecture to her kids almost ineffective. Look, if she wanted positive role models, she wouldn't be this idiotic about it. Her kids are going to kiss other kids with mutual affections without literally saying, "I GIVE CONSENT." Love and affection still exist.

How does this compare to the Harry Potter scare of the early 2000s? Well, both Kristen and Pentecostal parents are thinking about how Disney films correspond to their political point-view regardless of the rhetoric and themes the films portray. Though the Harry Potter series portray witches and wizards as people like us with similar socio-political problems, they are still outed as "bad guys" by Christians because witch and wizards are the "bad guys" in their political sphere. Though the Prince's kiss functions to merely wake up Snow White, Kristen thinks of the kiss as being nonconsensual in her political sphere being an actress in a corrupt industry. But the Prince kiss just won't. The kiss is only for a film and forever exists for a film. It exists in that small world for that purpose.

So if she wanted to explain the message of consent, using the Prince from Snow White is just a poor example because Snow White doesn't object to him, and they BOTH agreed on loving each other. Like maybe Lord Farquad would be a better example of a guy forcing feelings and objectives on a woman.

[Disney's Divinity]

I was more referring to her comment about the Prince's kiss. And the Prince almost lives outside the main chunk of the film with the most thematic value that it makes her lecture to her kids almost ineffective. Look, if she wanted positive role models, she wouldn't be this idiotic about it.

I think it's funny one criticizes Kristen Bell of "lecturing" and being "righteous" for asking her children questions to trigger conversations based on something they've watched or read--which parents should do--by lecturing her on what she should believe and how she should parent.... If anything, those terms describe your response, not her.

Her kids are going to kiss other kids with mutual affections without literally saying, "I GIVE CONSENT."

The only thing ridiculous here are these oversimplifications. It's worth using a moment like that one to discuss with a child when it's not okay to kiss someone who's unconscious. You look for openings like that where you can find them.

The difference between this and Harry Potter is that misogyny, rape, and sexual harassment are real--witchcraft is not.

[JeanGreyForever]

The difference between this and Harry Potter is that misogyny, rape, and sexual harassment are real--witchcraft is not.

Well, witchcraft actually is real, just not in the Snow White and Wizard of Oz sense. And there are certainly still people, Christians and non-Christians, who demonize witch practitioners.

And please don't connect Snow White's prince waking Snow White up from the sleeping death to sexual harassment or rape. This isn't like the original fairy tales where Sleeping Beauty is literally raped in her sleep by a stranger and gives birth to his children. Snow White and the Prince already have a relationship and it's akin to kissing your partner awake in the morning while they're sleeping. Nobody would call that rape or sexual assault, at least I hope not. Not to mention that this is a fairy tale and relationships in fairy tales function very differently than in the real world so if Kristen Bell has issues with the characterization of Snow White and the Prince, there are plenty of other non-Disney and non-animated movies she'll also have to give up.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, witchcraft actually is real, just not in the Snow White and Wizard of Oz sense.

Then I think you understand what I said just fine.

And please don't connect Snow White's prince waking Snow White up from the sleeping death to sexual harassment or rape.

I didn't. And, funnily enough, neither did Kristen Bell, but as is common in the age of Twitter outrage, you don't need to know the facts of a story to lambast somebody anyway.

Not to mention that this is a fairy tale and relationships in fairy tales function very differently than in the real world so if Kristen Bell has issues with the characterization of Snow White and the Prince, there are plenty of other non-Disney and non-animated movies she'll also have to give up.

Again, Kristen Bell didn't say anything about "giving up" Snow White. She was giving examples of how she reads books or watches movies with her children and then asks them questions afterwards to foster critical thinking skills (one of the other examples was not trusting strangers the way that SW lets the witch into the cottage and eats her food). Much ado about nothing.

[JeanGreyForever]

Then I think you understand what I said just fine.

I didn't. And, funnily enough, neither did Kristen Bell, but as is common in the age of Twitter outrage, you don't need to know the facts of a story to lambast somebody anyway.

Again, Kristen Bell didn't say anything about "giving up" Snow White. She was giving examples of how she reads books or watches movies with her children and then asks them questions afterwards to foster critical thinking skills (one of the other examples was not trusting strangers the way that SW lets the witch into the cottage and eats her food). Much ado about nothing.

Except you said that misogyny, rape, and sexual harassment are real while witchcraft is not. However that trivializes the discrimination and prejudice that actual witches have faced from the beginning of time. Many of them not even real witches but just women (typically older women) who were forced out of their homes, burnt at the stake, etc. all because of their gender and age. Maybe we don't have witch hunts like the Salem Witch Trials anymore, but sexism and ageism (especially the two combined) still very much exist. And all of this doesn't even go into the actual witches of today who are painted out to be devil worshippers.

Kristen Bell did make a comment about how Snow White's prince shouldn't kiss her without her consent, never minding the fact that she's not ever going to be able to give consent to anything until he kisses her to revive her. Also, I didn't specifically mention Kristen Bell until the very end of my post as what I wrote was meant as a general message to all the nay-sayers who've been speaking out against Disney lately like Keira Knightley. Keira flat out said that she's banned Cinderella and The Little Mermaid for her daughter. From what I remember she said that she still needs to go over Sleeping Beauty to see if that should be banned or not as well.

[Disney's Divinity]

I know about wiccans. I don't consider them Devil-worshippers who do magic, so I stand by what I said before. Even if there are people out there who claim they do magic, I don't believe it to be real the same way I don't believe in psychics or ghosts. Since you brought it up, I think the misogynist hysteria of Salem is relevant today--you can see it in the reaction to Bell's descriptions of how she talks about things with her daughters, which is practically a "Burn the feminists at the stake" outcry.

I don't know about Keira Knightley. If she said she'd ban Cinderella and TLM from her daughter while she's still at an impressionable age, I don't think she's a bad person or parent for it at all. I don't think they're bad films, but there are questionable things about them and every parent has to make their own judgments about those things.

[Candy-Bonita95]

I think it's funny one criticizes Kristen Bell of "lecturing" and being "righteous" for asking her children questions to trigger conversations based on something they've watched or read--which parents should do--by lecturing her on what she should believe and how she should parent.... If anything, those terms describe your response, not her.

Okay, I think you're missing my point and taking our discussion on these tweets personally. You probably think that we're attacking Kristen's parental values. We're simply not. We're just saying she has a flawed way of interpreting Snow White. We WANT kids to understand the value of consent, but it's not going to work through limiting Disney movies or being worried that a child would take things literally. And yeah, I only say "idiotic" not to dee, Kristen is a bad parent- just ignorant of how film impacts an audience, specifically a young audience.

And just because people her think that Kristen was being ridiculous and that I'm being self-righteous, remember that 1) Kristen tweeted this for the public 2) we want great values to be instilled into the next generations, but not all of us think that films have that specific effect on a child's mind. I respect that parents do care for children on a day-to-day basis. I respect that parents ask their children questions, but Kristen didn't just do that. When Kristen made those tweets, she wanted confirmation and assurance that what she was doing was right, but it didn't turn out well because who the heck interprets Snow White that way? Not a lot of people whether the liked or hated the film.



end. done. We wanted to talk about films, not judge parental instinct.

[Disney's Divinity]

but it's not going to work through limiting Disney movies

Something she didn't suggest.

When Kristen made those tweets, she wanted confirmation and assurance that what she was doing was right

No, she didn't. She made the comments in an interview with Parents magazine... Where she, shockingly, talked about her children. This just reminds me of when Meryl Streep--or was it Emma Thompson?--was being railed here a few years ago because she called Walt Disney racist at an awards show. I know it hurts to hear criticism of films you love, but they're objects, not people, and no matter how much we may love something, that doesn't mean they're perfect to everyone.

[JeanGreyForever]

I know about wiccans. I don't consider them Devil-worshippers who do magic, so I stand by what I said before. Even if there are people out there who claim they do magic, I don't believe it to be real the same way I don't believe in psychics or ghosts. Since you brought it up, I think the misogynist hysteria of Salem is relevant today--you can see it in the reaction to Bell's descriptions of how she talks about things with her daughters, which is practically a "Burn the feminists at the stake" outcry.

I don't know about Keira Knightley. If she said she'd ban Cinderella and TLM from her daughter while she's still at an impressionable age, I don't think she's a bad person or parent for it at all. I don't think they're bad films, but there are questionable things about them and every parent has to make their own judgments about those things.

You might not consider Wiccans devil-worshippers, but the rest of the public doesn't necessarily believe that way which was my point on how Wiccans and other witch practitioners still get a bad rep. I didn't look at the comments to Kristen's post but I am aware that feminists (or anyone who posts anything even remotely representing gender equality) get attacked all the time on social media. That's nothing new and I completely am in agreement with you that the witch trials of Salem exist today in a different medium. However, while I don't condone the vitriol that Kristen Bell is receiving from the 4chan and red pill psychos, I don't find her comments to be particularly enlightening. She's just jumped on the celebrity train where it's ok to attack the classic Disney films and characters, something which she also did when she first got the role of Anna. It comes off as ungrateful, not to mention that most of what she's had to say is just regurgitated from what others before her say without actually even watching the movies.

Every parent has the right to make decisions for their own child. Certainly the Harry Potter/Wizard of Oz haters have the right to keep that content from their child. I had a best friend and she wasn't allowed to watch any movie that depicted witches in a positive manner, such as the aforementioned films. However, that doesn't mean that others can't critique these parents for what we consider their misguided judgement. If Keira really thinks that Cinderella or The Little Mermaid will brainwash her daughter into a repressed woman who can never achieve anything without a man, then that speaks more to her own parenting than anything else.

No, she didn't. She made the comments in an interview with Parents magazine... Where she, shockingly, talked about her children. This just reminds me of when Meryl Streep--or was it Emma Thompson?--was being railed here a few years ago because she called Walt Disney racist at an awards show. I know it hurts to hear criticism of films you love, but they're objects, not people, and no matter how much we may love something, that doesn't mean they're perfect to everyone.

It was Meryl Streep and Walt Disney really wasn't a racist for his time considering the strides he made for black and Jewish people in the industry. Yes, some of his films could have problematic content, but behind the scenes, he did a lot and shouldn't have his name defiled. If the accusations levied against him were actually true, that would be one thing, but that's not the case. It's just become vogue since his passing to sully his name, however all the facts point elsewhere as corroborated by people who actually knew him and worked with him.

[Disney's Divinity]

If Keira really thinks that Cinderella or The Little Mermaid will brainwash her daughter into a repressed woman who can never achieve anything without a man, then that speaks more to her own parenting than anything else.

Let's not pretend these stories don't have things that someone may not want their daughter to grow up with in a world that's already cruel and demeaning to women overall. Cinderella's only escape being through marriage, Ariel signing her soul over for a three-day chance to be with a man, both marrying someone they don't know beyond a couple days at most, Ariel and Ursula's f***ed up body image dichotomy, both characters operating essentially as property (Cinderella traded from her father to her stepmother to her husband; Ariel from Triton to Ursula to her husband), etc. I wouldn't ban these movies from my children because, as I said, it's worth using these kinds of stories as an opening to talk to your children. That doesn't mean I don't respect other parents who want their daughters to grow up with more empowered examples in their daily purview until they're at an age where films and media have less influence.

[JeanGreyForever]

Let's also not pretend that the stories showcased aren't realistic portrayals of what women had to deal with for most (if not all) of humanity's existence. Yes, Cinderella was only able to escape her life through marriage and while that doesn't hold up today does that make it necessarily a bad thing, considering the context of her situation? Is the "better" option remaining in slavery to her stepfamily because if only a man can save her, then she's better off with other women, albeit abusive women? By this take of censoring Disney films because of how women were portrayed, you basically have to censor all of history. We can't pretend that women weren't treated this way and that marriage wasn't basically the only option for women's upkeep and security in a time when they couldn't even own property as everything belonged to their father, brother, husband, son, etc. It's the truth of the matter whether we like it or not and it's worse to follow a revisionist history where we pretend to children that all of this didn't occur. And frankly most children aren't even going to see all historical itty-gritty details about women's roles in society back then. They're going to be caught up in the magic and the pretty gowns and action scenes, etc.

Ariel gives up her soul, not just to nab a man, but also because her dream is to be human. This is a common complaint but it's rendered moot when you consider that she sings Part of Your World way before she meets Eric. Eric is just her catalyst and I don't find anything unfeminist about Ariel at all. I was in a similar situation as her where I wanted to change something in my life but it was ultimately for a guy and a chance at love that I really got the drive to go ahead with my decision. Maybe that's unfeminist, but I don't really care, since at the end of the day, it was still my choice and my decision. Marrying someone you barely knows is a staple of fairy tales, folklore, literature, films, etc. Nobody in real life actually goes and gets married to a complete stranger except on reality TV so these same celebrities should also issue diatribes on reality shows like Married at First Sight if they're going to bother with attacking Snow White.

[Disney's Divinity]

Let's also not pretend that the stories showcased aren't realistic portrayals of what women had to deal with for most (if not all) of humanity's existence.

But the people watching aren't living then, they're living now. I would use these films to talk about history, but there are always parents who aren't willing to go to those lengths and would rather just omit the film altogether. Those that use cartoons as a glorified babysitter to distract their kids with.

Ariel gives up her soul, not just to nab a man, but also because her dream is to be human. This is a common complaint but it's rendered moot when you consider that she sings Part of Your World way before she meets Eric.

I know all of this already. But it can just as easily be viewed as regressive, considering her obsession with the human world is mostly forgotten when she meets Eric and not mentioned at all during her scene with Ursula. The point is the films require explanations for things that on a superficial level don't look too great to a modern audience--and children 5 and under only register the superficial. Which is why I can understand the reasoning for that kind of decision even if I wouldn't do the same thing myself.

[JeanGreyForever]

But the people watching aren't living then, they're living now. I would use these films to talk about history, but there are always parents who aren't willing to go to those lengths and would rather just omit the film altogether. Those that use cartoons as a glorified babysitter to distract their kids with.

I know all of this already. But it can just as easily be viewed as regressive, considering her obsession with the human world is mostly forgotten when she meets Eric and not mentioned at all during her scene with Ursula. The point is the films require explanations for things that on a superficial level don't look too great to a modern audience--and children 5 and under only register the superficial. Which is why I can understand the reasoning for that kind of decision even if I wouldn't do the same thing myself.

But anytime you watch a film or read a book, you're meant to be transported to another time and place. Sometimes, if the film or book is contemporary, you're in a world that still resembles the one you normally live in, but most Disney films aren't like that. A different time period comes with its own different rules and norms and it's ludicrous to expect our standards of today to match the standards of another time. As for animated films, particularly Disney animated films being relegated to mere cartoons, that's a stigma that has existed for decades now which unfortunately goes completely against the types of pictures that Walt used to make: ones that were meant for the whole family, not just the kids.

Ursula doesn't bring up Ariel's interest in the human world because she knows that Eric is the only thing she's thinking of right now. Which is also evident from how Ariel behaves when her sisters and her father catch her daydreaming and totally in love. That is a perfectly realistic portrayal of a normal, headstrong and love-struck teenager. Honestly, in this case critics need to censor an entire demographic of humanity if this upsets them, because any teenager with their first love (or any love really) act like this, as if the whole world depends on them getting the guy/girl they are in love with. Whether that love is true or not doesn't even matter, because for the teen, it certainly feels that way. I'm not sure though that I agree with you that looking at a Disney movie superficially makes them come off as not particularly great to a modern audience. I can believe that for jaded adults, but not for children. Really none of them are thinking about the larger implications of Ariel's decision or Cinderella going to the ball. They're just looking to be entertained by a story. Parents should realize this, especially since these films don't feature much violence, swearing, crude humor, etc. which is rampant in anything that isn't rated G anymore. Any of the darker elements like in Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Hunchback, etc. can be addressed but if children grew up watching these films (plus more like The Wizard of Oz) and turned out fine, then surely they can do so in this highly desensitized age. I mean when I was forced to watch Deadpool in theaters, it was literally filled with kids and their fathers.

[Disney's Divinity]

But anytime you watch a film or read a book, you're meant to be transported to another time and place. Sometimes, if the film or book is contemporary, you're in a world that still resembles the one you normally live in, but most Disney films aren't like that. A different time period comes with its own different rules and norms and it's ludicrous to expect our standards of today to match the standards of another time.

This is why children at different ages are relegated different sets of books, because very young children don't understand how rules and norms were different "in another time" and all the ways they aren't acceptable anymore. I doubt most children would understand what 'norms' are outright even while they're absorbing them. Either way, Disney films aren't exactly Pride & Prejudice or Gone With the Wind. They're inaccurate and break the rules all the time as it suits them because ultimately the films keep children in mind foremost. The reason films like TLM, Snow White, etc. didn't change things to be less regressive wasn't out of loyalty to depicting the time period accurately, but because those were norms of the time in which the filmmakers grew up / were living. TLM tries more than SW considering it's the first fairytale film following the feminist movement, even if it still fails in some ways.

I'm not sure though that I agree with you that looking at a Disney movie superficially makes them come off as not particularly great to a modern audience. I can believe that for jaded adults, but not for children. Really none of them are thinking about the larger implications of Ariel's decision or Cinderella going to the ball.

When I was referring to looking at them superficially, I mean the way children don't know all these caveats that makes x thing not regressive technically (and which still boils down to subjective interpretation) and simply accept the base regressive depiction as 'normal' when those actions are depicted as normal. Questioning the text outright is too complex, sometimes even with an adult's prodding.

[Disney Duster]

I thought Meryl Streep didn't call Walt Disney racist but only sexist because of the letter that said women aren't usually animators and suggested the woman it was addressed to could only be in ink and paint, and that Pamela Travers must have been a woman who challenged Walt Disney with her creativity.

I think it's fine that a woman saw a movie (well a book of a movie) from a past time period with what she considered bad messages for girls and used it to teach her girls good messages. The only problem I have is I don't find the story to actually teach bad messages.

[JeanGreyForever]

This is why children at different ages are relegated different sets of books, because very young children don't understand how rules and norms were different "in another time" and all the ways they aren't acceptable anymore. I doubt most children would understand what 'norms' are outright even while they're absorbing them. Either way, Disney films aren't exactly Pride & Prejudice or Gone With the Wind. They're inaccurate and break the rules all the time as it suits them because ultimately the films keep children in mind foremost. The reason films like TLM, Snow White, etc. didn't change things to be less regressive wasn't out of loyalty to depicting the time period accurately, but because those were norms of the time in which the filmmakers grew up / were living. TLM tries more than SW considering it's the first fairytale film following the feminist movement, even if it still fails in some ways.

When I was referring to looking at them superficially, I mean the way children don't know all these caveats that makes x thing not regressive technically (and which still boils down to subjective interpretation) and simply accept the base regressive depiction as 'normal' when those actions are depicted as normal. Questioning the text outright is too complex, sometimes even with an adult's prodding.

I don't really believe that children don't understand that rules can be different in another time. Children are exposed to other cultures and countries more and more these days and they certainly learn that rules can differ in one cultural setting compared to another. This is especially true for multicultural families. I agree that children won't know what a norm is outright, but they certainly have an idea of what some social norms are, like not touching someone without permission, not taking someone's stuff, etc. These are learned behaviors that they become acclimated to in social settings like school or the playground.

You're right that most Disney films, especially the fairy tales ones, aren't really that accurate to the time period that the film is set in as they are accurate to the time period that the film came out. However, that still goes with children realizing that the worlds set in those films are very different from the ones we have now. The current world doesn't have castles with princes and princesses, nor magical fairies, dragons, genies, etc. By this logic, children shouldn't understand what a king is, let alone be exposed to the concept of one, since kings, especially the absolute monarch ones, don't really exist in our current time period for the most part. Yet, children are still exposed to them and know the difference between them and presidents that are far more in the norm of today's day and age. There's no confusion there.

Also frankly, 2D animated films come off as dated anyway to children today. Most of the ones I know will watch anything CGI but if it's hand-drawn, they lose interest because it seems old and antiquated to them.

[blackcauldron85]

‘Frozen 2’ Release Date Moves Up a Week
https://variety.com/2018/film/news/froz ... 203017475/
(via animatedviews.com)

& there aren't many comments yet, but out of 4 comments, 2 are about Elsa having a girlfriend isn't appropriate/boycotting ....how is a boyfriend appropriate but a girlfriend not? Unless people don't want her to have a boyfriend either... so confused and sad at people.

[Sotiris]

How is a boyfriend appropriate but a girlfriend not?

It's because of a little thing called "homophobia".

[disneyprincess11]

Since when is a gay couple not suitable for a "child's" movie? (Rhetorical). We can have a guy attempting to murder his fiancé and her sister in the first movie, but two girls in a love is a no-no. Kay kay.

And if Anna can have a boyfriend, Elsa can have a girlfriend. Period. Bye.

[estefan]

‘Frozen 2’ Release Date Moves Up a Week
https://variety.com/2018/film/news/froz ... 203017475/
(via animatedviews.com)

& there aren't many comments yet, but out of 4 comments, 2 are about Elsa having a girlfriend isn't appropriate/boycotting ....how is a boyfriend appropriate but a girlfriend not? Unless people don't want her to have a boyfriend either... so confused and sad at people.

Word of advice: Never read the comments in trade publications like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Most sane people just read the articles on those websites, leaving the crazies to the comments sections. I remember looking at the comments of Variety's "Tomorrowland" review and most had nothing to do with the movie, they were just rants about George Clooney being a liberal. I don't even know why they even have a comments section.