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.

Just look at Frozen II intro (and also the first in the series)


Everyone (including soldiers) dressed in Late 18th -> (more precisely) Early 19th century. but none wield guns of any form. everyone, if not engages in combat with magics, still uses pre-gunpowder weapons, there were redcoats that used crossbows against a giant bear, and here! Napoleonic era soldiers wielding Early medieval weapons instead of flintlock muskets (or even pikes! i'd say give'em pikes were still more acceptable since in 1812, Imperial Russia did reintroduce pikemen... The Home Guards (This one was due to the lack of firearms to equip troopers, and even with cavalry carbines reallocated to footsloggers !) What did Disney thinks of? did they try to say gunpowder never exists in this universe or Elsa dampened all gunpowders with her nasty magic??

Probably has to do with "guns" being something they dont want to show kids in this current day and age.

its also a kids cartoon movie :/

 Lone Cat wrote:
Didn't firearms or gunpowder exists in Elsa's fantasy world?

That's your answer. It's not the real world. All we can say is, I guess not as no-one appears to have them.

1. Is it American Broadcasting and motion pictures regulations/laws that forbids displays the uses if firearms in that genre? Or is it one of many Disney policies? (The other also annoys me that localized dub MUST ABSOLUTELY MATCHED the original English actors (or voice actors) and no 'cool culture over acting' voices like Panthamid team permitted


^ This is their voice examples, however this team also consisted of female casts but not participated in this clip. Also just listen to their voice act and what do you think will they do well with Elsa and Anna?
2. Given that Frozen is based on Hans Christian Andersen's Snow Queen literature. What was an era he intended this story to be? Medieval? or Late Enligthenment?

I'm unclear on what guns would do for the story or setting.

As someone who's really tired of guns and explosives being inserted sideways into fantasy properties no matter what or how badly they fit, giving them a miss in a Disney cartoon is something of a minor relief.

1. Is it American Broadcasting and motion pictures regulations/laws that forbids displays the uses if firearms in that genre? Or is it one of many Disney policies?

No and no.

It isn't nudity, so no regulations.
Other Disney films have guns.

There just isn't any particular reason for a story about ice magic and sisters to have guns.

Voss wrote:
I'm unclear on what guns would do for the story or setting.

As someone who's really tired of guns and explosives being inserted sideways into fantasy properties no matter what or how badly they fit, giving them a miss in a Disney cartoon is something of a minor relief.

1. Is it American Broadcasting and motion pictures regulations/laws that forbids displays the uses if firearms in that genre? Or is it one of many Disney policies?

No and no.

It isn't nudity, so no regulations.
Other Disney films have guns.

There just isn't any particular reason for a story about ice magic and sisters to have guns.

Yeh the two sissies don't need guns, but what are explainations why no soldiers have one even they supposed to do? (They dressed in 19th century garb and no medievals!) nor any tricks that Elsa encountered gunslingers and she stopped them before they can fire by damping their powder and gun ignition system went dud. or any explainations they went back to pre gunpowder weapons like long winter prevented the use of gunpowder weapons?

They could also presented that musket wielding troops can't stop monsters with musket volley just like how Human ships can't do anything against Gamilas ships at the beginning scene of Space Battleship Yamato. but Elsa's party can. maybe?

The time period really seems more in-line with the 14th to 15th century rather than the 18th. Which was when firearms started becoming common but not ubiquitous. Crossbows were still the standard ranged weapon of the time period as firearms were still not yet superior in all circumstances. They were also expensive. A small relatively poor country like their might not be able to afford firearms in any significant numbers.

Remember that during the entire Spanish conquest of the Americas even up through the 1600s, the conquistadors were still mostly using crossbows. Yes they had guns and cannons, but they were not the most common weapon. Guns were also mostly a psychological advantage against the natives. Properly hardened steel armor could still resist gunshots if fighting Europeans, and crossbows fired much faster and with more long range accuracy so were overall more useful in actual combat.

Early firearms on a strictly practical level were not superior to crossbows till the invention of the flintlock. Prior to that, firing mechanisms were too complex and/or unreliable on top of the weapon having a short effective range. So it would not really be unusual for military forces up into the 1600s to use older more reliable technology. Especially if you are a more backwater area.


But of course, the real reason is probably that they wouldn't serve any literary purpose. The only people who use guns in Disney movies are villains anyway.

 Lone Cat wrote:
1. Is it American Broadcasting and motion pictures regulations/laws that forbids displays the uses if firearms in that genre? Or is it one of many Disney policies?

Neither. The 2017 Beauty and the Beast remake had the Beast nearly mortally wounded by a pistol shot, and firearms are prominent in every single Pirates of the Carribean movie. At a minimum, they were heavily used and displayed in 20,000 leagues, so it's not just live action. I am sure there are more examples.

This is one of the weirded ideas I've seen here, by the way. "You know what would make Toy Story awesome? If Woody had an Uzi."

Well, I salute you, fellow realism addict! I actually have a love for realism that is unrealistic myself.

Thing is, realism has no actual place in Frozen, or most movies. Even most fiction, probably. Frozen itself doesn't exist as a means of realistic exposition. That is, nothing in Frozen exists as merely an exposition of realism.

Now, it does have calls to a verisimilitude to realism, but the key there is the appearance, not anything which is actually real. Nothing exists in Frozen as a matter of facts, only a matter of narrative interpretation.

So, in the end, all anything in Frozen actually is, in-itself, is just narrative contrivance. It's "convenient," for narrative sake, to call to certain elements of the real world. Another way to say it would be that any appearance of "reality" in Frozen, or the like, is simply just window dressing, calls to give something an air of "realism" without any such thing.

So, why are there no guns in Frozen? Simply because they serve no narrative function, that is, they are just not a part of the narrative. In fact, part of the narrative is/might well be the very fact of their absence.

You might be interested in Baudrillard's notion of Simulacra and of hyper-reality as further reading. Not that Baudrillard's theories are in any way perfect, but I do think they are an illuminating way to look at things, even if/when they might not be the "whole story."

 Lone Cat wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm unclear on what guns would do for the story or setting.

As someone who's really tired of guns and explosives being inserted sideways into fantasy properties no matter what or how badly they fit, giving them a miss in a Disney cartoon is something of a minor relief.

1. Is it American Broadcasting and motion pictures regulations/laws that forbids displays the uses if firearms in that genre? Or is it one of many Disney policies?

No and no.

It isn't nudity, so no regulations.
Other Disney films have guns.

There just isn't any particular reason for a story about ice magic and sisters to have guns.

Yeh the two sissies don't need guns, but what are explainations why no soldiers have one even they supposed to do? (They dressed in 19th century garb and no medievals!) nor any tricks that Elsa encountered gunslingers and she stopped them before they can fire by damping their powder and gun ignition system went dud. or any explainations they went back to pre gunpowder weapons like long winter prevented the use of gunpowder weapons?

Soldiers don't need guns to be soldiers. They don't have guns. It doesn't matter to the story or the setting, because the story isn't about soldiers shooting guns in any way at all.
It doesn't come up. It doesn't matter.

Why do they not have cats? Or little pug dogs and swagger sticks? The latter certainly come up in period photographs, but they're also not relevant to the film.

 Desubot wrote:
Probably has to do with "guns" being something they dont want to show kids in this current day and age.

its also a kids cartoon movie :/

Yeah, but that was the case even when I was a kid. Although having just rewatched Gargolyes on Disney+, I liked their solution.
A very early episode had a shipment of the main bad guy's laser guns get stolen and leaking into the market. So from then on, every bad guy used laser weapons and rarely ever bullets.
Although there was a fairly mature episode in which one of the Gargolyes accidently shoots their lady cop friend with her own pistol. It was a neat way to show kids the consequences of playing with real firearms, though cartoon action

-

 Galef wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Probably has to do with "guns" being something they dont want to show kids in this current day and age.

its also a kids cartoon movie :/

Yeah, but that was the case even when I was a kid. Although having just rewatched Gargolyes on Disney+, I liked their solution.
A very early episode had a shipment of the main bad guy's laser guns get stolen and leaking into the market. So from then on, every bad guy used laser weapons and rarely ever bullets.
Although there was a fairly mature episode in which one of the Gargolyes accidently shoots their lady cop friend with her own pistol. It was a neat way to show kids the consequences of playing with real firearms, though cartoon action

-

like if they dont have to they probably wont.

Remakes that had guns from the past probably will still have guns (like beauty and the beast, and tarzan). shows that are more towards teens and young adults could probably have guns still. but frozen while beloved by many is still directed towards kids and is a new IP and as such they will probably avoid "problematic" things as much as possible to keep it brand safe.

mind you i honestly dont care that much about politically correcting things. its a decision that was made by disney and it logically makes sense from the broad side of things in this day and age.

 Ouze wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
1. Is it American Broadcasting and motion pictures regulations/laws that forbids displays the uses if firearms in that genre? Or is it one of many Disney policies?

Neither. The 2017 Beauty and the Beast remake had the Beast nearly mortally wounded by a pistol shot, and firearms are prominent in every single Pirates of the Carribean movie. At a minimum, they were heavily used and displayed in 20,000 leagues, so it's not just live action. I am sure there are more examples.

This is one of the weirded ideas I've seen here, by the way. "You know what would make Toy Story awesome? If Woody had an Uzi."

The fox and the hound is mostly about a man with a gun. Bambi opens with the moms getting shot. Gargoyles has guns.

 Lance845 wrote:
Gargoyles has guns.

Yes, but what I like is that the show writers found a good way to handle them. You almost never see the good guys fire guns unless it's a laser weapon and an early episode gave a story reason why most of the bad guys got ahold of laser weapons despite the show being set in contemporary times.
If you have to avoid guns for a TV show or movie, that's the way to do it IMO

-

 Lone Cat wrote:
Everyone (including soldiers) dressed in Late 18th -> (more precisely) Early 19th century. but none wield guns of any form. everyone, if not engages in combat with magics, still uses pre-gunpowder weapons, there were redcoats that used crossbows against a giant bear, and here! Napoleonic era soldiers wielding Early medieval weapons instead of flintlock muskets (or even pikes! i'd say give'em pikes were still more acceptable since in 1812, Imperial Russia did reintroduce pikemen... The Home Guards (This one was due to the lack of firearms to equip troopers, and even with cavalry carbines reallocated to footsloggers !) What did Disney thinks of?

I think what Disney thought was that the target audience for the movie was unaware of the intricacies of various type of weapons development and spread through history, unable to correlate fashion and uniform with a time period either, and would still be deeply uninterested in the movies matching those historical facts even if they knew of them, which they didn't, courtesy of being kids rather than military/history nerds .