Is Frozen overrated?

[D'Snowth]

I think certain types want more than what society is willing at the time. I'm absolutely happy that shows like Steven Universe and Clarence managed to force through some progress. Though in SU's case, the gems are technically genderless and just take on female human characteristics. The gay community deserves representation that isn't 90's style minstrel show Sean Hayes in Will and Grace cartoons. On the other hand, this would put Disney in an odd situation. If they were to change the character into a lesbian, they'd incur the wrath of the obvious loud and angry groups that like to pretend to be victims (because only they can force their viewpoints on others) and have the first and second movies banned in Russia for being propaganda. You know, the country with the leader who's a creepy guy who likes to pose shirtless and has a very disturbing obsession with kids? And if Disney doesn't, said pro-lesbian Elsa groups will be up in arms about it and call Disney homophobes as a result. Look at the crap that Nintendo got for not keeping gay relationships in...Wii...something town or whatever that was. That Mii avatar thing. They're either going to get crap from "religious" groups, or crap from younger consumers who are far more accepting. They chose the latter, which is no surprise since they've been pulling that sort of wishy washy parental group-aphobic stunt since Mortal Kombat got a home port.

But I'll respect that movement over the "make Jack Frost and Elsa an offical couple" fan-ficy crap. Not only is it not in the best interest of Dreamworks and Disney to cross their characters over, but Frozen made a crapton of money and Rise of the Guardians not so much.

Well, you know what? Despite the whole "two mommies" PFB controversry from, like, over ten years ago, there's a very vocal majority among the LGTB Arthur fan community, and they desperately want the show to introduce and/or reveal a LGTB-friendly character. I can't tell you how much a majority of the fandom ship Arthur and Buster, many others also ship Francine and Muffy, and some also ship Prunella and Marina (the latter of which I ship a little myself).

I can kind of see the point everybody's making though: we may not have come exactly a long way in the past decade, but we're certainly a lot more forward-thinking than we were back then, and if we can feature TV commercials aimed at kids feature two fathers in a Campbell's soup commercial, and even show mixed/blended families on TV now (which also used to be taboo back in the day), it seems like, to me, it's only a matter of time before kids shows should be able to feature a gay character.

 

[Drtooth]

First off, no one uses the words "homosexual" anymore unless they're clearly homophobic. I just love how they took that word and made it somehow more offensive than the one that begins with an "F" and means British pork meatballs. I can't even use the word "African American" anymore because certain types made it so condescendingly nasty sounding. At best, it's a patronizing term, at worst it's a passive aggressive statement that says "Those durn PC types won't let us say the N word straight to their faces!"

Secondly, it shouldn't bloody matter if characters on a kid's cartoon are gay. Heck, we have enough straight cartoon characters pushing innuendos in the past with no problem. Yakko, Wakko, and Dot should have turned a generation of kids into sex crazed maniacs by that logic. These cartoons aren't saying "Hey kids! Go have all the crazy, casual sex as possible because it's awesome!" So neither would any gay characters. I laugh at how past the radar Candy from Space Goofs was, mainly because no one was really watching Space Goofs.

And yes I find the Ernie and Bert thing stale and discredited for decades. It's totally Bunsen and Beaker. They hint at it hard as far back as at least Muppets Tonight.

Well, you know what? Despite the whole "two mommies" PFB controversry from, like, over ten years ago, there's a very vocal majority among the LGTB Arthur fan community, and they desperately want the show to introduce and/or reveal a LGTB-friendly character.

The saddest thing about it is that the "two Mommys" thing was about real people. Jerks were attacking a real family, and Marc Brown actually had to tell the little girl why her family wasn't allowed on TV. heartbreaking. There's a difference between bad reaction to a TV show making a character ahead of its time, and bullying others because they feel anything they have no control over is a threat to their (supposed) deeply held beliefs. I'd love to see Arthur get more diverse, but that would have to be a new character that has two same gender parents.

I can kind of see the point everybody's making though: we may not have come exactly a long way in the past decade, but we're certainly a lot more forward-thinking than we were back then, and if we can feature TV commercials aimed at kids feature two fathers in a Campbell's soup commercial, and even show mixed/blended families on TV now (which also used to be taboo back in the day), it seems like, to me, it's only a matter of time before kids shows should be able to feature a gay character.

The fact of the matter is, anger and hate love to spread in groups. The internet is a great place for idiots to meet and go from slightly bigoted to full blown victim bullies, and the anonymity helps shield them from being shunned by civilized society. What makes it worse is that very same extremist crap starts to seep into said civilized society and radicalizes even rational people. We have morons spewing hate at an Old Navy commercial for daring to have a mixed race couple. Something that has been normalized for years now. It's all about the entitlement of wanting society to be a certain way and turning into hateful monsters when they don't get their way. That's who LGBT characters in things are up against. That's why those like Nintendo play it incredibly safe. Much as I'm still mad at Archie for killing the Mega Man comic, I always gave them credit for boldly introducing Kevin Keeler considering it's freaking ARCHIE!!! They accepted a gay character before they let the characters listen to KISS! It's a brave thing to do because they're going to get crap from bigots posing as a parental group. And hate mail. And other completely immature things grown#$$ adults who act like the fat kid at a supermarket that didn't get enough packages of cookies from their enabling parents. Poorly, pettily, and pathetically.

 

[jvcarroll]

First off, no one uses the words "homosexual" anymore unless they're clearly homophobic.

YES! Wonderfully stated. Thanks for that. Gay or the truncated term LGBT will do just fine. Homosexual just seems so weirdly clinical as if the person saying it is studying us from a museum. It's like - gay folk exist in your life whether you know it or not and so far none of them have bitten you yet! Ha! It still amazes me how much latent prejudice exists among Muppet fans. Craziness! I'm disappointed that ickiness still hangs around the forums. It's friggin 2016! Gay people exist and we're not going back into the closet. Gay people have worked on and for the Muppets and Disney since the beginning and continue to do so. The "think of the kids" argument when speaking of LGBT representation in entertainment viewed by children is the worst of all. LGBT is a state of being. It's a trait and a state of attraction, but some conservative crazies reduce it to sex. Thoughtful people know that being gay isn't any more about sex than being straight and there have been no objections to princes courting princesses in Disney films. Besides, I could have used some good examples of strong LGBT characters when I was a kid. Heck. The horrible kids that used to bully me could have used that too. Anyway, thanks again for that comment.

Oh, and the idea that animation is merely for kids angers me too. They're for everyone. That comment almost irritated me even more. Haha.

Some points about Frozen:

• This Twitter campaign to give Elsa a girlfriend is from some fringe folk and not what most people seem to want. As a gay fella who came out in the 90's and has lived in SF for half his life, I'm not a fan of this idea. I don't hate it. It just isn't necessary.
• Frozen already contains the subtext of a person finding self acceptance after being shunned and judged by her community and family. It's a beautiful message that's open to interpretation. It can fit anybody and that's great! No tinkering.
• There's nothing wrong with allowing characters to reflect the world around us as long as they're organically written rather than forcefully wedged into an already beloved franchise. I have no doubt it will eventually happen in a Disney film. Probably not this one.
• Frozen is a multi-billion dollar industry. Disney's not going to risk changing what works to suit a few people on Twitter. Nobody has to worry. It's much ado about nothing.
• LGBT characters in Disney's Marvel and Star Wars films are going to happen. It probably won't be a big deal or a major plotpointl It'll just be and that's great. It'll likely happen in Disney animation somewhere down the line too. Yay that! Everyone deserves to see themselves represented.

 

[Drtooth]

• LGBT characters in Disney's Marvel and Star Wars films are going to happen. It probably won't be a big deal or a major plotpointl It'll just be and that's great. It'll likely happen in Disney animation somewhere down the line too. Yay that! Everyone deserves to see themselves represented.

I remember a while back when there was a campaign to get a "plus sized" Princess into a Disney movie. Of course, "plus sized" itself is a relative and poorly defined and usually a passive aggressive in itself term to mean fat. And yes, I have the morbid curiosity to have a fat Disney Princess outside of the depths of fetish fan art. I don't think Disney is ever in the interest to not make an underage princess look like a smoking hot 25 year old. Even in Walt's day with Snow White and Cinderella. If there's one thing I give Brave credit for, it's making the young teenage daughter Princess look like a young teenager. She's the most realistic of the Princess group. I really think we should see more realistic princesses in these films, but those don't sell fashion dolls. And even if they didn't, they'd force them to anyway.

That said, I certainly have no objection to overall diversity in movies and TV shows if it's done right. I want to see that. But when it comes to that kind of representation, why does it have to be a Disney Princess? Disney works best without trying to cram the formula into another movie to add to a product line. Frozen may be a Disney Princess movie, but did you ever notice that Frozen is its own product line and franchise? Only time I ever saw it included into the Princess brand was the Lego sets. Lilo and Judy Hopps (among others) are very strong, very relatable female characters and they didn't need a line of fashion dolls to get there.

And do we really need to retroactively change characteristics of an established character to get that level of diversity? Unless that was a plot point or reveal in Frozen 2: The Refreezening, I don't think there's a reason to change the orientation of Elsa. Unlike comic book characters, of course, who are constantly changed, redesigned, origins retconned and reretconned. I'm of two minds of racelifting characters. We were never going to get black Peter Parker or Miles Morales Spider-Man into the shared MCU. He's too iconic. But at the same time Marvel changed white Nick Fury into a caricature of Samuel L Jackson specifically so they can approach him about actually playing the character. And that worked out beautifully. Race lift does go both ways. Baxter Stockman was a white guy in the 80's cartoon, but thankfully since TMNT 2k3, he was made back into a black guy. Not to mention Bebop hasn't been played by a white guy (despite being drawn to be a black guy pre-mutation) since the 80's series and has J.B. Smoov and Gary Anthony Williams in the Nick series and Paramount movies respectively. BUT the first Paramount TMNT movie almost had Shredder as a white guy (though through an inherited title) and reacted to very bad internet criticism by splitting the character into 2.

To me the trick with Super Hero comics/movies and something like Star Wars is, if we're going to get original characters to be portrayed as LGBT or non-whites, are they going to be characters with these traits or traits attached to thin characters? Always a concern. In the end, I really want to see more creative types of more backgrounds create things they can relate to so they can relate to others because I hope more would like to see more perspectives in comics and cartoons and movies.

That said, if the only thing holding back more representation of gay characters is fear of reprisal from so called parental groups and angry jerks on the internet, that's something that's sad but also sadly understandable. I love how Clarence and Steven Universe essentially said "screw you" to that and gave us Jeff with two mommies and space lesbians (though, again, they technically don't have a gender and only identify themselves with one). That takes a lot of courage, but on a global scale, that's a pretty big amount of courage. I'm sure Russia banned a crapload of Steven Universe episodes, and I'd be surprised if they even continue to air the thing. Disney is a very global company, and I can see them chickening out for the sake of countries far righter than ours because they're a business after all.

And yes. The "somebody think of the children" stuff is absolute bullhonkey. There are worse things happening to kids that no one does crap about. But hey! I'm still completely baffled buy the fact they still sell kids' toy guns yet you dare put a real firearm in a cartoon and the network will come down on you like the wrath of Thor.

 

[D'Snowth]

• I'm not a fan of this idea. I don't hate it. It just isn't necessary.
• There's nothing wrong with allowing characters to reflect the world around us as long as they're organically written rather than forcefully wedged into an already beloved franchise.

• 
  That's kind of what I was saying about this Xena reboot recently: the sole reason they're rebooting the series is simply because they can now blatantly show that Xena is a lesbian without getting in trouble for it. Like you said about subtext, the original series was already full of it, so what exactly are they bringing to this simply by making this more obvious? Like you say, it's forcefully wedged in there, but the unfortunate thing, that's the way a lot of movies or series are today: there's an unwritten rule that you have to include at least one ethnic or gay character in the cast, otherwise you're racist or homophobic or just plain un-P.C., yet those characters almost always end up becoming the token minority of the cast, and hardly anything else.

 

[jvcarroll]

That's kind of what I was saying about this Xena reboot recently: the sole reason they're rebooting the series is simply because they can now blatantly show that Xena is a lesbian without getting in trouble for it. Like you said about subtext, the original series was already full of it, so what exactly are they bringing to this simply by making this more obvious? Like you say, it's forcefully wedged in there, but the unfortunate thing, that's the way a lot of movies or series are today: there's an unwritten rule that you have to include at least one ethnic or gay character in the cast, otherwise you're racist or homophobic or just plain un-P.C., yet those characters almost always end up becoming the token minority of the cast, and hardly anything else.

I don't know enough about Xena. I just always assumed. It doesn't really bother me. I doubt it would bother many of her fans. But, again, I don't know much about it.

 

[jvcarroll]

I remember a while back when there was a campaign to get a "plus sized" Princess into a Disney movie. Of course, "plus sized" itself is a relative and poorly defined and usually a passive aggressive in itself term to mean fat. And yes, I have the morbid curiosity to have a fat Disney Princess outside of the depths of fetish fan art. I don't think Disney is ever in the interest to not make an underage princess look like a smoking hot 25 year old. Even in Walt's day with Snow White and Cinderella. If there's one thing I give Brave credit for, it's making the young teenage daughter Princess look like a young teenager. She's the most realistic of the Princess group. I really think we should see more realistic princesses in these films, but those don't sell fashion dolls. And even if they didn't, they'd force them to anyway.

That said, I certainly have no objection to overall diversity in movies and TV shows if it's done right. I want to see that. But when it comes to that kind of representation, why does it have to be a Disney Princess? Disney works best without trying to cram the formula into another movie to add to a product line. Frozen may be a Disney Princess movie, but did you ever notice that Frozen is its own product line and franchise? Only time I ever saw it included into the Princess brand was the Lego sets. Lilo and Judy Hopps (among others) are very strong, very relatable female characters and they didn't need a line of fashion dolls to get there.

And do we really need to retroactively change characteristics of an established character to get that level of diversity? Unless that was a plot point or reveal in Frozen 2: The Refreezening, I don't think there's a reason to change the orientation of Elsa. Unlike comic book characters, of course, who are constantly changed, redesigned, origins retconned and reretconned. I'm of two minds of racelifting characters. We were never going to get black Peter Parker or Miles Morales Spider-Man into the shared MCU. He's too iconic. But at the same time Marvel changed white Nick Fury into a caricature of Samuel L Jackson specifically so they can approach him about actually playing the character. And that worked out beautifully. Race lift does go both ways. Baxter Stockman was a white guy in the 80's cartoon, but thankfully since TMNT 2k3, he was made back into a black guy. Not to mention Bebop hasn't been played by a white guy (despite being drawn to be a black guy pre-mutation) since the 80's series and has J.B. Smoov and Gary Anthony Williams in the Nick series and Paramount movies respectively. BUT the first Paramount TMNT movie almost had Shredder as a white guy (though through an inherited title) and reacted to very bad internet criticism by splitting the character into 2.

To me the trick with Super Hero comics/movies and something like Star Wars is, if we're going to get original characters to be portrayed as LGBT or non-whites, are they going to be characters with these traits or traits attached to thin characters? Always a concern. In the end, I really want to see more creative types of more backgrounds create things they can relate to so they can relate to others because I hope more would like to see more perspectives in comics and cartoons and movies.

That said, if the only thing holding back more representation of gay characters is fear of reprisal from so called parental groups and angry jerks on the internet, that's something that's sad but also sadly understandable. I love how Clarence and Steven Universe essentially said "screw you" to that and gave us Jeff with two mommies and space lesbians (though, again, they technically don't have a gender and only identify themselves with one). That takes a lot of courage, but on a global scale, that's a pretty big amount of courage. I'm sure Russia banned a crapload of Steven Universe episodes, and I'd be surprised if they even continue to air the thing. Disney is a very global company, and I can see them chickening out for the sake of countries far righter than ours because they're a business after all.

And yes. The "somebody think of the children" stuff is absolute bullhonkey. There are worse things happening to kids that no one does crap about. But hey! I'm still completely baffled buy the fact they still sell kids' toy guns yet you dare put a real firearm in a cartoon and the network will come down on you like the wrath of Thor.

You're right. Retconning can be done well like in the case or Nick Fury. I had mixed feelings about Johnny Storm controversy, but the film was such a mess anyway that it doesn't really matter.

It's a big world. We all deserve to see ourselves reflected in it. Entertainment is one of those ways. When folk hear about inclusion of a minority or an LGBT character, the first thought is that they're going to ramrod some overbearing character into a project when it's the opposite that's trying to be accomplished. Agents of SHIELD has beautifully introduced a secondary LGBT character a while ago and he kind of just passed under the radar. I love that. BTW, the show has gotten a lot better after that clumsy first season. Anyway, I think that Disney's inclusion of LGBT in Marvel and probably inclusion in Star Wars will be graceful and understated. I'm interested in seeing how that unfolds.

 

[Mynameisdean]

I am Straight. I don't support LGBT Rights, but I have family members that are LGBT, and I still treat them normally.
Just because you don't support some modern cause DOES NOT always mean you are Ignorant.
Also, us as in the GOP aren't that bad.

On a somewhat related note, around St. Patrick's Day I saw legitimate stuff online saying to stop St. Patrick's Day/Parades because they were celebrations of "white pride". SERIOUSLY?? Now, I may be white, and part Irish (I'm mostly) Italian, but I wouldn't ask a Asian Pride Parade to stop, or any other minority pride parade to stop. I know they think "White Power"=St Pattys Day, but NO!! You can't make this stuff up. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if people who want to condemn celebrating Irish Heritage are white college students with predominantly Irish ethnic backgrounds.

 

[Pig'sSaysAdios]

I definitely don't see the point in making Elsa gay or straight. Her sexuality was never an important part of her character, which is one thing I liked about her. Every character doesn't have to have some kind of a romantic plot, Anna already has that.

 

[jvcarroll]

I am Straight. I don't support LGBT Rights, but I have family members that are LGBT, and I still treat them normally.
Just because you don't support some modern cause DOES NOT always mean you are Ignorant.
Also, us as in the GOP aren't that bad.

On a somewhat related note, around St. Patrick's Day I saw legitimate stuff online saying to stop St. Patrick's Day/Parades because they were celebrations of "white pride". SERIOUSLY?? Now, I may be white, and part Irish (I'm mostly) Italian, but I wouldn't ask a Asian Pride Parade to stop, or any other minority pride parade to stop. I know they think "White Power"=St Pattys Day, but NO!! You can't make this stuff up. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if people who want to condemn celebrating Irish Heritage are white college students with predominantly Irish ethnic backgrounds.

The lack of empathy in your statement is astounding and doesn't fit any Muppet or Henson theme of variety and diversity I've ever heard. Are sure you're in the right place?

Equality is not a cause, it's a right. One that we should all share.

LGBT rights are nothing more than human rights. Being against human rights for particular groups of people makes a person a bigot.

I'm not a religious person, but I support the right for you to worship and believe how you choose and to share that with others.

No matter what you believe, if you block the equality of others with whom you disagree, you are the very definition of ignorant.

A lot of folk are uncomfortable with the term homophobic because, well, I guess they don't own a dictionary.

A phobia is defined as a fear or aversion to something. Not agreeing with LGBT equality constitutes an aversion.

Also, fear is very much at the heart of it too. It's not that people are afraid of LGBT folk. They fear the loss of supremacy and/or priority. In other words, so many folk believe that there's only so much equality to go around and if one group achieves it, another group loses theirs. That is false. That is bigotry. And that is ugly. There's enough for us all to share.

I have friends of all stripes. Mormons, Muslims, Trangender, Gay, Straight, Questioning, Catholics, Christians, Jews and otherwise. I have countless Conservative friends too. Most of them don't care about what LGBT people do and believe that equality is a two way street. That's a mature perspective.

They're also horrified that a raging bigot has taken over their party. It's shameful to have a candidate that believes that vilifying Latinos and talking about the size of his genitalia are appropriate conversation for a presidential candidate. That party is so fractured. I feel bad for my Republican friends. Too many in the GOP turned a blind eye to this sort of institutionalized racism for decades and it ended up taking over the party. Instead of being a debate of ideas, it's one of prejudice and hatred. Statements like the one you made are complicit in that. It's not a Conservative value. That's prejudice. Plain and simple and fugly. Not cool.

As far as the Irish parade is concerned, I have no issue with that and most others don't either. There are many cultural parades and I think it's beautiful. What you're citing is the radical fringe. That's not the norm. They're not even worth mentioning.