Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You may have thought that Endgame was the big thing of the film year 2019, or Star Wars IX perhaps, but make no mistake: THIS is what most people are salivating for.

Lots of the people here probably don't care about Frozen or very formulaic (some would say stale) Disney animated features in general, but I can appreciate a good Disney flick and Frozen undoubtely was one of the best they have come up with (another particular favourite of mine was Aladdin (not the new one)). It was if anything surprising that Disney, with tons of existing franchises, still managed to come up with yet another virtual license for Quantative Easing.

Teaser was released earlier this year, and trailer few days ago, and for a Disney princess quasi-musical, they are very dark and tense:

Teaser:



Trailer:



Really, these feel like superhero movie trailers, but I guess it makes sense, as Elsa basically is a superhero. It appears they are exploring the origin of Elsa's powers - and perhaps the question if there are others like her. Also looks like story might involve girls' parents who are presumed dead.
Animation quality looks really great, big challenge for them is to keep girls' personalities distinct, instead of having 2 generic Disney princesses in the same movie.

Formulaic it may be, but Frozen was a pretty good film (even if I think Tangled deserved more recognition in comparison). It's a good example of why formula is a thing in the first place. Because it works.

Looks like they're shifting gears to adventure over sibling drama. The lack of clarity on the plot though leaves me feeling like the film might be disjointed though.

I fell asleep in the first one...let it go.

Should be a fun ride

What I'm personally not looking forward to is what hit song is going to be played from this movie on the radio ad nauseum. Unless its a parody of Let it Go called "Go It Let".

 LordofHats wrote:
Formulaic it may be, but Frozen was a pretty good film (even if I think Tangled deserved more recognition in comparison). It's a good example of why formula is a thing in the first place. Because it works.

I have read many people say that...I think it is because Frozen just looks so good, with the magic winter wonderland and otherwise great visual design. And especially Elsa. Amount of merchandise she sells is stupendous, Disney probably had to construct another Money Bin for all the dough Elsa is bringing in.
You can get away with a lot when a character just looks good. Examples: Spike, Spider-Gwen.
And when you think about it, Rapunzel is cool and all, but do girls really want to be her? All that hair must be pain to take care of. On the other hand, ice powers? Oh boy.

 LordofHats wrote:

Looks like they're shifting gears to adventure over sibling drama. The lack of clarity on the plot though leaves me feeling like the film might be disjointed though.

Well, they're intentionally keeping much of the plot in the dark. It kinda looks like Elsa sets out to do it by herself first, which sits poorly with Anna who tracks her down. Should be good opportunity for sibling drama! And of course, they leave no one in charge of the kingdom again. Seems like some better organized nation like Weaseltown should annex them once and for all

Backfire wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Formulaic it may be, but Frozen was a pretty good film (even if I think Tangled deserved more recognition in comparison). It's a good example of why formula is a thing in the first place. Because it works.

I have read many people say that...I think it is because Frozen just looks so good, with the magic winter wonderland and otherwise great visual design. And especially Elsa. Amount of merchandise she sells is stupendous, Disney probably had to construct another Money Bin for all the dough Elsa is bringing in.
You can get away with a lot when a character just looks good. Examples: Spike, Spider-Gwen.
And when you think about it, Rapunzel is cool and all, but do girls really want to be her? All that hair must be pain to take care of. On the other hand, ice powers? Oh boy.

 LordofHats wrote:

Looks like they're shifting gears to adventure over sibling drama. The lack of clarity on the plot though leaves me feeling like the film might be disjointed though.

Well, they're intentionally keeping much of the plot in the dark. It kinda looks like Elsa sets out to do it by herself first, which sits poorly with Anna who tracks her down. Should be good opportunity for sibling drama! And of course, they leave no one in charge of the kingdom again. Seems like some better organized nation like Weaseltown should annex them once and for all

Hey, that would actually make sense for the follow up movie if they abandon their royal duties and leave the kingdom alone and return back to see it under the banner of another kingdom. They'd have actual consequences and realize impulsively chasing after magical macguffins without following any sort of planning or back-up is irresponsible for heads of state.

New trailer up, now with some plot details as well. Elsa has her hair untied! Animating that must have broken the bank.

This sounds like a good time to watch the first one, which I still have yet to do. I'm not averse to it or anything, I mean it seems like basically an x-men origin movie; just never got to it.

Those are really good trailers, the first one especially.

 Grimskul wrote:


Hey, that would actually make sense for the follow up movie if they abandon their royal duties and leave the kingdom alone and return back to see it under the banner of another kingdom. They'd have actual consequences and realize impulsively chasing after magical macguffins without following any sort of planning or back-up is irresponsible for heads of state.

The kingdom was without a monarch for 3 years with no issue. I don’t think they’re reliant on her for anything.

It is a good movie and I agree Tangled deserves a lot more credit. I didn’t love it in theaters but it’s become a favorite since.

 LunarSol wrote:
The kingdom was without a monarch for 3 years with no issue. I don’t think they’re reliant on her for anything.

Yeah, that is one thing that (my daughter had us watch it for the, who knows how many times) I kind of wondered, in my unrealistically-fixed-on-reality mind. There seemingly would have to have been some Regent at hand, or some such. It's something I'd have liked, even as a hand-wave, passing mention of, in the original. One way to just hand-wave it away is to have them, for some reason or other, have the actual "seat" of governance outside the palace, so the Regent would have little reason to be seen in the original movie. Except at the coronation, of course, but again, one could hand-wave that away further by saying it was a regency by committee, I guess, and they are all just somewhere in the audience.

Once Elsa is in power, well, I think it's likely simply up to her how much delegation she would be apt to employ, most probably. For narrative purposes, I think the most apt answer is "alot."

Eh a lot of Kingdoms operate quite well without a monarch in charge. The day to day running isn't actually in need of a monarch beyond where they had things like managing the handing out of punishments and such. A figure head would have easily worked for many years.

Monarchs tend to be more there for the big choices - like who to go to war with - so a kingdom that isn't warlike in a situation where there isn't much war going on could easily get away without a monarch for many years. Provided they had a good regent or council setup (considering we aren't introduced to a regent I assume a council made up of key people in the settlement and kingdom) then no monarch would be easy to run with.


Also don't forget many kings and queens would go on hunts, holidays, feasts etc.... It wasn't work 24*7. So they could likely get more than a few days away to adventure off to save the kingdom.

 Overread wrote:

Also don't forget many kings and queens would go on hunts, holidays, feasts etc.... It wasn't work 24*7. So they could likely get more than a few days away to adventure off to save the kingdom.

Wilhelm II even went on an extended cruise once...

Fair points all around.

I'd be apt to think, personally, that Disney, were they for some reason "forced" to spell out Arendelle's (ideal (that is, idyllic)) form of governance is likely something akin to a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy.

Not that Disney is at all likely to spell that out in any way. However, I doubt their general idea of Arendelle would be likely to include that it's monarchy would be very autocratic. Arendelle is likely to be a democracy of some sort, because that is what "we" consider (nowadays) as the "ideal" form of governance.

I doubt Disney have thought much about it, if they do hoepfully its not as silly as the Star Wars prequal stuff with The elected Queen.

It seems to be a small City-port state so likely will have form of city council that deals with things in the Queens absence or is not interested in. I am assuming someone looked after the place when their parents died.

It's probably closer to how the Royal family is in the UK. More of a figurehead of state. However ruling over a kingdom that has a very strong support of their monarchy in general. It might likely have been a gradual change started in their parents era or before, but steadily taking hold; taking a much stronger hold when their parents will killed and they were too young to take the Throne.
It's probably right at a tipping point where if they really wanted too they could likely enforce their rule and gain good support for it; perhaps even to the point where they wouldn't even get much of an uprising (except for the one person on the council who will seethe with rage, flee the country and raise an army in a neighbouring nation and then come to try and conquer them).

 Mr Morden wrote:
I doubt Disney have thought much about it, if they do hoepfully its not as silly as the Star Wars prequal stuff with The elected Queen.

Well, I agree, I don't think they have thought about it, because there is/has been no reason to. But I am just doing a sort of thought experiment, as to what I'd imagine would be the case, were they for some reason "forced to." But, indeed, there is likely never to be such a reason.

Although, the ship kind of sailed on an "elected Queen" in Frozen, since we already saw that Elsa is a hereditary monarch,

It could also be noted that the Olaf's Frozen Adventure special kind of shows that Arendelle is something of a syncretic, multicultural place. To me, that points to a likelihood that it is envisaged (that is, would be envisaged) as a generally liberal, democratic place.

Of course this is all nonsense, since there is no matter of fact about Arendelle, since Arendelle is not a place as a matter of facts, but rather as a matter of interpretation. Arendelle could literally be Tartaros just "off frame" were Disney want it so. Or not. It could be anything, really. I just am waxing on about what I'd personally suppose it would be. There is no necessity to Arendelle though, not really (so if they wanted it to be an elected monarchy, well, it could be, despite being shown to not be).

 Overread wrote:
Eh a lot of Kingdoms operate quite well without a monarch in charge. The day to day running isn't actually in need of a monarch beyond where they had things like managing the handing out of punishments and such. A figure head would have easily worked for many years.

Monarchs tend to be more there for the big choices - like who to go to war with - so a kingdom that isn't warlike in a situation where there isn't much war going on could easily get away without a monarch for many years. Provided they had a good regent or council setup (considering we aren't introduced to a regent I assume a council made up of key people in the settlement and kingdom) then no monarch would be easy to run with.

Elsa was, I think, 18 when her parents died. It's possible she became ruling queen immediately and that for some fuzzy reason ceremonial coronation could not take place until she was 21 and maybe there was no regent. Monarchs can reign before coronation. Noteworthy that Anna took charge immediately when Elsa fled though she was not yet 'of age'.
But my pet theory is that group of people who argue about what to do towards the end of movie were old Regents. Arendelle seems to be a small kingdom, so it probably is not fully independent, perhaps part of some greater alliance or dependancy. Maybe the regent council was made up from princes and lords of some neighbouring states as well.
However, they probably did not give it too much thought, in most works rulers have very vaguely defined powers so they don't get into way of story twists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I doubt Disney have thought much about it, if they do hoepfully its not as silly as the Star Wars prequal stuff with The elected Queen.

Was that system ever explained somewhere in detail? Teenage monarchs are plausible but teenager as elected leader makes no sense whatsoever. Only explanation I can think of is that their consitution specifies a monarch which can be selected only from very limited pool of eligible candidates and Amidala won that vote.

Backfire wrote:
However, they probably did not give it too much thought, in most works rulers have very vaguely defined powers so they don't get into way of story twists.

Indeed, perhaps we could say the key is that the narrative does not exist as a function of Arendelle, Arendelle exists as a function of the narrative. So, Arendelle is only what the narrative "needs" it to be, no more, no less. Of course, this is exactly why it's governance is "undefined" in large part, because the narrative has no "need" for the most part of it.

It's worth noting that it does appear to be a very small community. Almost unfathomably small by our standards. Maybe a little as a few hundred people? It's built into the side of the mountains surround by fjords. The castle itself is out in the water and mostly seems like its a fortress to regulate and defend the port or provide a place to shelter the townsfolk from raids from the land. When I really look at it its honestly a lot smaller than I assumed; more of a large mansion with a clock tower that makes it look a lot bigger than it probably is. There may be a greater "kingdom" beyond the immediate town, but I kind of doubt its really regulated in any way. It's not the kind of place with a huge need for governance outside of a figurehead for trade agreements and filter some of the communal funds for things like the guards. In a lot of ways, her actual job is probably less involved than what we saw out of Moana.

Town itself seems to house like couple of thousand people at best. The kingdom does appear to have some kind of countryside. States like that were very common in old HRE, small princedoms of few thousand peoples. Europe was once littered by tiny states like Liechtenstein.
Maybe they tried to colonize the Northuldra (the natives shown in the trailer) and that's what sparked the fighting...

 LunarSol wrote:
It's worth noting that it does appear to be a very small community. Almost unfathomably small by our standards. Maybe a little as a few hundred people? It's built into the side of the mountains surround by fjords. The castle itself is out in the water and mostly seems like its a fortress to regulate and defend the port or provide a place to shelter the townsfolk from raids from the land. When I really look at it its honestly a lot smaller than I assumed; more of a large mansion with a clock tower that makes it look a lot bigger than it probably is. There may be a greater "kingdom" beyond the immediate town, but I kind of doubt its really regulated in any way. It's not the kind of place with a huge need for governance outside of a figurehead for trade agreements and filter some of the communal funds for things like the guards. In a lot of ways, her actual job is probably less involved than what we saw out of Moana.

You have some good points here. Indeed, I think the actual city, right there, is likely just a small port, and likely exists as a functionary of the royal court and the port itself. (My mind immediately wandered into a bad parallel with St. Petersburg, Russia.)

Now, just why the kingdom exists at all, or rather, why it even matters at all, is another issue. It seems that Weaselton is eager to do business here, so much so that the Duke is eager to enact a plan to dispose Elsa, there must be something of value in/to Arendelle.

If we surmise there is a greater kingdom, i.e. that Arendelle is not just a literal city-state, then we could surmise it presents a market of sorts. Or, potentially exports something of value. Now, I do think it would seem unlikely that Arendelle is a vast market though. So, either they export something of value, or there is something else. Since we are presented with the notion of the port, I'd propose that another possibility, that Arendelle is a key entrepot, perhaps granting ready access to a larger market outside it's own kingdom. If it is the case that the coast is particularly unfit for ports, for example, Arendelle could have a claim to the best manner of access to those markets.

Not that there is any way to know just why it is that Arendelle matters, there is only the seeming fact that the narrative says it does.

Value is variable - if the realm is full of small one city kingdoms then gaining one more kingdom is quite a powerful move. That this kingdom is clearly prosperous and well maintined with little signs of poverty or strife suggests that its affluence and that its affluence is long lasting. A fine prize for anyone to secure.


And yes its a port and a good solid port is always an important thing to hold for trade purposes and access to markets. Again making it a likely rich settlement. Even if the kingdom is just that port and the wildlands around it

I want to see the dystopian follow up exploring the ruined lives of ice sellers and Weselton businesspeople who were driven out of business when Elsa handed a monopoly to one and embargoed the other.

Isn't this the first disney princess movie to get a sequel with a theatrical release.
All in all Frozen was nice, and had some ok messeges.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Isn't this the first disney princess movie to get a sequel with a theatrical release.
All in all Frozen was nice, and had some ok messeges.

Frozen isn't technically part of the Disney Princess brand.

Not all Disney princesses are Disney Princesses, and vice versa.

DAS seldom makes sequels, but they have made a few. None of the 'princess' movies have got a feature sequel though, if we're not counting short films. Of course there have been straight-to-video sequels.

Olaf's comment in the last trailer seems to imply that more sequels will be coming...

 LunarSol wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Isn't this the first disney princess movie to get a sequel with a theatrical release.
All in all Frozen was nice, and had some ok messeges.

Frozen isn't technically part of the Disney Princess brand.

Counterpoint, they were included in the Disney princess gang in Wreck It Ralph 2.

 AduroT wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Isn't this the first disney princess movie to get a sequel with a theatrical release.
All in all Frozen was nice, and had some ok messeges.

Frozen isn't technically part of the Disney Princess brand.

Counterpoint, they were included in the Disney princess gang in Wreck It Ralph 2.

I'm just poking fun at the marketing.

For those not aware; Frozen is part of its own merchandise brand and not part of the brand that covers all of the others, even newer ones like Moana. Disney didn't want to dilute the Frozen brand by making it just another princess film.

On a similar note; Aladdin is the only Disney movie with a purple logo on the home releases, because its the only movie under the princess brand in which the princess is not the main character.

Wow, I didnt know that, I mean it makes sense, but I guess I never noticed that.
I still do think this is among one of the few really big disney movies with a sequel in theaters.(that isnt pixar)