Discussion in 'Community' started by Darth Xalfrea, Dec 5, 2013.
Did I stutter droolboy?
Anderson's are not brutally depressing or depressing at all. Maybe one or two? Only Grimm's are.
So get this. Frozen plays up with how Anna and Elsa are the two protagonists and how being sisters plays huge role in the story.
In the original screenplay, Elsa would've straight up been the villain and would've been much more like the titular character of the Andersen story. The circumstances behind her flight and fall off the slippery slope would've still played out in the original screenplay, except that Elsa would share no sentiment towards the kingdom and not give a crap about it being on ice. In the end she would've been redeemed.
Some of the cut songs exemplify this, like "Life's Too Short" which was meant to play where the First Time in Forever reprise was going to be. Another song, "Spring Festival" was also discussing some Troll Prophecy that was axed when the movie removed that plot point and Elsa being more humanized. Other cut songs include a song where Anna feels inferior to Elsa (Replaced with For the First Time in Forever), a more traditional romantic song between Anna and Hans (Replaced with Love is an Open Door), and a grander rendition of Kristoff's Reindeer Song.
Perhaps the the Lopez's, more used to Broadway, wrote the songs first before the story and screenplay were written. I could be wrong on this, but given the importance of musical numbers in Broadway productions, perhaps that was how it went initially for Frozen as well. For movies with musical numbers, I believe it's the other way around.
But what caused this whole change in the story, screenplay and everything into the one we know now? "Let it Go" the very first song written for the movie (SPECIFICALLY for Idina Menzel BTW). The power and characterization of the song that delves into the psyche of Elsa's character and making her more sympathetic is why we ended up with what we got. For curiosity's sake I would like to see it as it was intended, maybe in bonus features on the home release, but I think what we ultimately turned up with was for the better and gives the movie a more personal feel instead.
Holy **** can you please hide your spoilers? The movie hasn't even been out a week and this isn't even a Frozen thread. Ugh.
In the UK and France, I believe it hasn't been out a week, but I do apologize.
I also think Atlantis is severely underrated. It's visually stunning with a great voice cast (Leonard Nimoy FTW).
I didn't even realize until I bought Atlantis earlier this year that Nimoy voiced the King. He does do an amazing job of it, particularly in his last scene before his character's death.
It's really too bad it was such a box office disappointment. That was one of the few Disney films from the Dark Ages that was worth viewing at least twice.
Agreed. Great concept. Its basically Stargate wrapped in Jules Verne. How can you not love that mash-up
It is eerily similar to Stargate in several ways.
This is a DCOM movie, so it may be on the lower end of Disney films, but I feel it's worth posting just because of the concept.
The stupidest concept ever for Disney or the coolest concept ever for Disney?
At one point that was basically the concept for The Incredibles and then Pixar shied away from that idea. That might say something.
I knew Frozen earned well deserved numbers, but the possibility of it surpassing Lion King's numbers and becoming the newest highest grossing Disney film?
Right? It was a right pile of steaming crap.
It's a great film. Trousdale and Wise were the most cinematic of the Disney directors in that period - shame that the financial failure of Atlantis scuppered their careers.
They also understood that if you're going to re-tell Dances With Wolves and not really do anything interesting with any of the characters per se, do it in less than 90 minutes.
Also, I agree with anyone who didn't like Frozen. That film is thin, thin, thin. Tangled was much better.
Wait, didn't they technically get those when they purchased Lucasfilm?
Not distribution rights from what I understand. And even now, Paramount keeps the rights to the existing movies.
Eh. For the life of me I'll never understand the corporate business world.
Frozen will come close, but I don't really see it surpassing The Lion King.
Opinions are like buttholes; everyone has their own.
I don't find Tangled bad, in fact I find it amazing and easily among my Top 5.
Frozen though I just find better.
These lists never really matter unless they're adjusted for inflation, anyways. I'm sure Snow White is still #1, and will remain there, out of all the Disney movies.
I thought Cinderella made more money adjusted for inflation?
Does anyone think Disney will ever release more sequels as part of the canon line, ala RDU, WTP (2011), and Fantasia 2000?
Quite frankly, I hope they don't. An occasional sequel could be fine, but too much of it would be a problem. Most of the canon films have no chance of getting a canon sequel in any case due to the presence of the horrible DTV junk (Aladdin, TLK, TLM, HOND, A:TLE, L&S, ect.) but a few, like SWATSD, and many of the latest films, from HOTR on, never got DTV-junk sequels.
What do you think? Future Canon sequels or no? I say no.
Please God no.
Yeah, I'm going to second that. Disney seems to be following a trend of adapting its better films for live theatre. Considering that Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Mary Poppins and Aladdin, which I saw yesterday, have all been excellent, its a trend that I am happy to see continue.