Really makes you think
>>84230713
Yeah.
It makes me wonder how many things these people made about things that never happened
Hans a shit
>>84230713
So death of the author only applies when they say something you don't agree with? Good to know.
>>84230713
The writers also said he's a tragic character and a product of growing up without love and even told Fontana they're thinking of bringing Hans back and redeeming him, though
What makes ME uncomfortable is tumblr's tendency to try to present their personal opinions and preferences as some sort of objectively best choice and everything they dislike as "inherently problematic" or whatever. Instead of saying "I personally loathe this character or that ship" it's now "this character is objectively ableist and abusive, and that means that liking them is supporting and normalising abuse and an act of aggression and also triggering to survivors, so no-one should be allowed to publicly say they like the character and shipping them with character x is also an objectively horrible thing to do and essentially creates more abuse because it normalises it and thus makes anyone shipping them, in fact, an abuser and a horrible, toxic person".
Like trying to pretend that it's not their personal opinion at all, it's just that it's triggering to poor abuse survivors, think of the abuse survivors, liking it is objectively harmful and should be banned. That sort of pro-censorship attitude is very widespread which is a bit alarming
Tumblr is very much cancer
It still bothers me that there was no scene before the reveal that even hinted that he was evil, and his actions seemed understandable even after that. He tried to kill Elsa, yes, but most people were trying to do that, and she was seriously hurting people with that eternal winter so it wouldn't be that bad. There was nothing showing that he would make a bad king, either - he was giving coats to the poor for god's sake.
Also, why did all the foreign diplomats cheer when he got knocked off of a boat? They didn't know he was evil yet at that point.
>>84230713
>Frozen
who cares
>>84230758
Death of the author should never apply. It's one of the most misunderstood and misused literary theories out there.
>>84230713
I think the same when people mention Elsa.
I'm getting a little tired of Disney movies having a surprise tweest villain. Wreck-It Ralph did it, Frozen did it, Big Hero 6 did it, Zootopia did it. Enough already.
>>84231791
Because it's a bad film.
>>84231791
The foreign diplomats are spineless sycophants who back whoever they think is most powerful. When Hans was in charge during the false winter, they flat-out told him to leave Anna to starve and freeze alone in the woods without her horse when Hans was planning to leave for a second search and rescue trip after her. "If anything happens to the princess, you are all Arendelle has left" and "Prince Hans, Arendelle looks to you", remember? But the moment Anna is fine and turns against Hans, they very quickly start to cheer for her even though 20 minutes ago they told Hans to forget about her, abandon her to die alone and take the throne
>>84231827
My understanding of death of the author is that you don't discard the author, but if he says shit like "this character is crazy" you have to be critical about the author's view on craziness and compare it to your reading of the character.
>>84232033
I thought it was pretty clear that King Candy was a villain/antagonist. Him being Turbo in disguise just added to his status as "the bad guy".
>>84230758
Death of the author is fine, but it is also fine to find is confusing/disturbing when real life people give justifications for shitty behavior. It's the same reason feminists hate the Twilight series, in which case death of the author is on their side.
So long as you aren't an asshole about it or expect anyone to care, though given the context of OP's image that probably isn't the case here.
>>84231827
Everyone can interpret the story differently, and the author's intentions are an excellent starting off point for that interpretation. Death of the author is only misused when people start promoting their own fanon as objective fact. It's part of the reason I hate Matpat so much.
>>84231200
>What makes ME uncomfortable is tumblr's tendency to try to present their personal opinions and preferences as some sort of objectively best choice and everything they dislike as "inherently problematic" or whatever
JUST LIKE 4CHAN!Specially /a/
But seriously tho, I take 4chan bitching for anything rather than the hypocrisi and insane facist intolerance of Tumblr.
>>84232074
Nah. In my understanding, if the author says "this character is crazy", that means the character is canonically crazy and they wrote them as crazy. Barthes' point in "Death of the Author" is mainly that a work should be taken "as is", and unrelated personal stuff like the author's personality, religion, race or political views shouldn't be used to explain or interpret the text.
However, it doesn't mean, like retards keep thinking, that you can completely ignore the author and declare your own headcanons as fact. The author is the author, their words (when clear and directly related to the work, as in "this character is x and their motivation is y") are word-of-god. However if they don't say anything, it shouldn't be decided that well the author had a problem with mental instability in their youth, therefore character x must be crazy even though the work only hints at it"
In any case it's just a theoretical essay pondering on authorship, interpretation and criticism, and not some kind of objective fact of life
>>84232129
The first part's true but the second part ain't. 4chan tries to use wanky ass logic in the fiction itself to prove that your waifu a shit. If anything it finds abuse victims funny for being dumb and weak, and "inherently problematic" content to be fappable.
(Seriously, how often do you see "think of the children"-esque whining on here compared to "Here is the most autistic list you have ever seen showing why my opinion is better than yours."?)
>>84232033
I miss over-the-top villains with songs about how evil they are and blatantly evil-themed decor. Disney is bad at twist villains, evil characters were always their strong point.
>>84230713
Why the fuck wouldn't he try to save Anna? It wold be much easier to control the kingdom if he at least had a member of the bloodline. You could have at least kissed her to see if it would work at which point she'd be yours to control and counted on your men to off Elsa on the bay
>>84230713
>Woobify
God I hate buzzwords
>>84232332
4chan has had moments of mob hate and dominant memes, but they are generally flash in the pan. The modern social justice crowd do seem more intent on codifying evil and building consensus. These may look similar but in terms of intention, they are opposite
>>84232251
A work usually is an expression of an author's political views, but people are only conscious about it when they deviate from their own.
>>84232567
Politics can permeate into almost anything, but there exists a world of aesthetic fiction out there that doesn't see moralising as it's main aim
>>84232456
He did try to save Anna pretty hard, anon. He went after her into the wilderness when the horse returned alone, and despite almost losing his own life against Marshmallow and the storm getting stronger and colder, he wanted to go out to look for her again even if it was dangerous.
The thing is that he knew that he didn't love Anna, he could barely contain his loathing for her, so he couldn't perform any sort of act of true love for her. He was under the impression that Elsa had intentionally cursed Anna to death since that's how Anna told it, and didn't know of Kristoff or Olaf, so when he says "if only there was someone who loved you" he believes it to be true - there's no-one who has true love for Anna, so there's no way to save her no matter what.
No-one, not Elsa, Anna, Olaf or even the Trolls realised that the act of true love should be Anna's act springing from the true love she feels for someone else, not an act done to her by someone else who loves her.
I think that if he would have thought there was any way to save Anna, he'd have tried to do it, since marrying her and ruling with her by his side would have strengthened his claim.
>>84232505
Like, the fuck is that even supposed to mean??
>>84231827
It's diegesis. Two different people can't agree 100% on a book or movie, because they don't have the same background and perception.
>>84232600
Aesthetics are substance. The absence of moralising doesn't make something apolitical or without ideology. I don't get why people get so worried about the possibility that their favorite cartoons aren't neutral.
>>84232567
>usually is an expression of an author's political views
>usually
Nah. It's been happening a ridiculous amount lately, though.
>>84232650
It's tv tropes lingo.
>>84232650
"Make sympathetic by way of making fat chicks want to hug them."
>>84232660
The vast majority of visual arts aren't political. An apple is an apple. A person is a person. Nice try at pushing the "EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL! CAN'T BE NEUTRAL ON A MOVING TRAIN!" bullshit though.
>>84232684
Aren't you confusing neutrality with passivity?
>>84232033
I can't wait for Moana to pull this trope. Watch the villain be white as /pol/ and /tv/ shit themselves.
>>84232251
>In my understanding, if the author says "this character is crazy", that means the character is canonically crazy and they wrote them as crazy.
No, not quite.
The author saying "this character is crazy" may make them canonically crazy, but just saying they're crazy does not mean "they wrote them as crazy." If the writing of the work itself does not show that the character is crazy, it means they failed to write them as crazy regardless of what they said later on.
Death of the Author is about prioritizing the author's actual work over their intentions, and if they didn't properly implement their intentions during the execution of their work, that's their problem. It also somewhat denies the idea of a "living work", basically acting as though the work is canonized in stone on its release, since the author could eventually change how they feel about what they wrote or even come to disagree with their own work. The author can't always be relied upon to be consistent, whereas the words will only change if someone completely reprints them.
Of course, the later point is weaker in the age of digital media allowing the author a greater ability to rewrite their works.
Motherfucker flips from good to evil suddenly and for no reason. Hans is a crappy villain, but that's okay, because he's also a perfunctory villain. The real opposing force is the baggage of Elsa's abusive childhood.
>>84232662
Human are inherently political creatures. Unless you make a strong concious effort to move away from them then most of the time some aspect of ones views will bleed into the work.
Could you people explain what canon is supposed to be exactly and why it matters? Aside from religious law, I've only encountered it in anglo debates about works of fictions, and I admit it's quiate a foreign concept to me.
>>84232567
I'd say ideological views rather than political views, because otherwise it's a bit restrictive in that context imo.
>>84231791
Fucking this
>be citizen of Arendel
>King and Queen die on diplomatic voyage
>princesses close the castle doors and seal them for a decade during which time you hear nothing from them
>First day of the gates being opened again the oldest sister brings down a blizzard on the capital city and runs
>Younger sister flees the city right after
>Things in town have gone completely to shit, people are dying left and right
>Foreign prince and his kingsguard take control of the royal army and start a giant relief effort saving the city seemingly out of the goodness of his heart
Why the fuck would they cheer for Anna punching Hans? Why would anyone even believe or trust Anna or Elsa in this situation
>Elsa cuts off ties with Weselton because the ambassador was a dick to her when she accidentally attacked him with magic without considering the geopolitical implications this would have
And this is our hero. Fucking girl power
At least we can all agree that elsanna is OTP.
>>84232803
True, poor wording on my part.
Also, canon isn't important.
>>84232660
Nothing is 100% neutral, but most things aren't 100% polemic either. Like you I am calling for moderation
>>84232803
Canon is all the information regarding a work of fiction that is considered to be part of the "actual storyline", more or less.
Say for instance you have the Lion King movies. Those are "canon" for the Lion King series. Then you have House of Mouse, where Simba shows up and interacts with a bunch of characters in an unrelated story. That is not canon, and doesn't influence the Lion King series itself in anyway.
>>84232805
The citizens of Arendelle don't have a whole lot going on in their heads.
Look at any given crowd scene, it's all blank stares and reactions to main characters. They live in a Scandinavia-like setting, but they had nothing to deal with winter. Just break out the coats and blankets from the upstairs closet, it's not like they destroy all their winter gear each year and make new ones every summer. Well, they might, given their rather simple minds.
Also, an overnight frost at a bad time can damage crops. Elsa put the country at full winter for a couple days, so that's destroyed the year's harvest. At least they can rely on their trade partners to help with the imminent famine. Ah, wait.
>>84233012
Canon in this respect is also defined by the production company
>>84233012
But then doubt rears its ugly head: Lion King 1 and 2 weren't written or directed (and probably animated) by the same people. The only thing that gives the perceived canon validity is the fact that all Lion King media is owned by Disney. This thought cannot be applied to, say, a film series where the creative team and the parent company changes between installments but continuity is retained. Is canon in this context a product of corporate loyalty?
>>84230713
>It makes me uncomfortable how people can have empathy for people that are unlike them
>>84230713
THIS JUST IN: FANFICTION WRITERS DO NOT RESPECT SOURCE MATERIAL. FILM AT 11.
>>84233133
Only when the production company is handling multiple works by different authors in the same fictional setting. If all the works are done by the same author, they can be taken as part of a "canon" of their own. An example would be shared universes, like the Lovecraft mythos, where one can either choose to include or ignore Derleth's works.
Eternal anglo pushing their agenda by presenting Danes as bad guys.
>>84230713
him turning evil out of nowhere is when i turned off the goddamn movie.
more than ever girls need good-prince role models dammit. marriage rates are the lowest they've ever been. happily ever after is fucking important.
>>84233995
That's exactly why he turned evil
>>84233102
Given that the plants that visibly died in the frost are seen coming back to life when Elsa undoes it, I'd say that's probably bullshit.
>Turbo was an incredibly well-done villain
>so every single one of our villains needs to be a "twist" villain
Forgive Hans.
>>84233995
The absolute black and white morality of this movie was jarring. It could have worked with a "our goals are too conflicting, this marriage is a bad idea, let's split"
Instead, he went full mustache twirling murderer.
At the beginning of the movie I was happy to have a bit of subtlety and no defined villain.
>>84231200
Hyperbole and ad hominem are the first line of defense for people's feelings on the internet.
>>84231791
the problem is that he's a real human trapped inside a cartoon.
>>84234298
>make an empty nasty character
>be praised for him being human and realistic
kek
>>84234338
>implying humans are not empty or nasty.
>>84234353
keep tipping that fedora
>>84234365
*tip*
:^)
>>84232818
>no matter what the topic of the thread is, Elsannafags always try to force their OOC incest crackship degeneracy
No lie, Elsannafags are the most obnoxious shippers I've ever come across
>>84234224
The movie would have been better if Hans had been left more ambiguous, but then there's the risk that the audience would "feel wrong" and like him and by consequence feel that Anna was wrong to fall for Kristoff while still engaged to Hans. Anna x Kristoff is the fairytale true love pairing of the movie, so it MUST feel like the 100% right choice.
Hans could still have been treacherous, he still could have admitted that he doesn't really love Anna and only wanted to get a throne, but it'd have been more in-character to be more matter-of-fact, present the facts with slight regrets, even. The bond villain tier monologue felt really hamfisted.
>>84232718
Nah, it will probably be some obscure local deity.
Wasn't he turned evil by the trolls or something?
>>84232251
Death of the Author is about interpretations about the meaning of a work in the context of the society it effects, not about the events in a work.
The example I always use is that Bradbury insisted to his grave that Farenheit 451 is not about censorship, but instead about Television.
But thats not how 99 percent of people who read the book took it, and the general consensus on the meaning of the book goes against to Bradbury's intent.
>>84232718
The villain will be Moana herself.
>>84236999
I would love it if that was the truth.
But how would that work?
Split personality?
Audience is shown the truth at the end?
>>84234254
that's literally the dumbest thing I ever heard, asshole.
>>84231827
god bless you
>>84235933
I have to agree, that's probably why Hans became such a dick in the final product.
I knew that once Kristoff showed up he and Anna were gonna be a thing, and he'd be out in the cold Hans. I kinda dislike that kind of thing in most romance movies.
I'm fine with Hans being a villain but I think he could have been done so better, better foreshadowing or earlier on you could tell something wasn't too right with him.
>>84236394
You know that is a possibility but I think it's unlikely.
>>84230713
It makes me uncomfortable that this below average film did so well.
>>84232033
>Disney movies having a surprise tweest villain
Disney didn't makeRangowhich also did it.
135
Look at his face, it's one of remorse and sorrow. It was his duty to use the younger sister then try to kill both, he was just doing what he had to and felt really bad about it!
>>84236999
>>84237091
Maybe a Sands of Destrution like plot cept the audienc is left in the dark about exactly what would happen.
>They go look for something on the ocean
>Moana claims it's to help with something
>Gets this close to it
>Fails
>We think things are looking down
>Reveal that if Moana succeeded then death for all
>Since they failed everyone lived
>>84237343
I just think that the trolls were dead set on shipping Anna and Kristoff, and they already showed they can edit memories and stuff.
They also sing about not letting anything get in the way of Anna and Kristoff, even after they're told she already has a fiancé.
And when the King was checking the book, the trolls were portrayed as being pretty scary or some shit, right? Haven't watched the movie since it came out, but I'm pretty sure the book showed the trolls with the classic villain shadow.
>writers say that the villain is a definitely a bad guy
I don't care much for any writer that can't defend their antagonist
>>84237417
If they make a sequel, it wouldn't surprise me if they end up revealing that.
>>84237448
>defend
>the antagonists
>>84231791
>there was no scene before the reveal that even hinted that he was evil
In Love is an Open Door, if you pay real close attention you'll notice almost all of the parts where they're supposed to sing together, he sings slightly after Anna, not in synch with her.
It's subtle, but it's there.
Still bullshit, though.
>>84230713
If people want to write Hans or other evil characters a very sympathetic in their own stories or whatever I don't mind at all, it's only when fans insist their headcanons,are actually canon even when there's no evidence they are and if you disagree then you're an idiot or "problematic" for not seeing how Anna and Elsa are obviously trans that it's terrible.
It's fiction so make your own versions of things if you want just lay off the "Hans dindu muffin" in canon. And yeah even in canon he's probably sympathetic but he did bad shit obviously.
>>84237330
kek
>>84231791
Well there was some microexpressions and such indicating that his love for Anna wasn't quite true - and for me, having watched a bit too much period drama, the 12 older brothers was a big warning flag that he desperately needs to marry money, and Anna being a princess of the realm would be a prime target for a golddigging prince. After that line I paid attention to his expressions and he's clearly faking his smiles on the engagement announcement scenes when Anna thinks it'd be great idea to bring the brothers who treated him like shit throughout his childhood in to live with them, and also on "that's what I was going to say".
But it's really subtle, so much that you can only see it on rewatching and specifically focusing on Hans' expressions, because they wanted the twist to have maximum emotional impact, which demanded that people bought the Hans-Anna romance. It's a bit too subtle, a lot of people feel like there was no build-up
>>84237390
Well but he was also animated with these expressions when he realises that Elsa needs to die for the kingdom's sake. No one can see his face, so most likely it's sincere, too.
>>84238312
>>84237390
And after the dungeon scene he learns from Anna that Elsa cursed her to death intentionally, which is how Anna tells it, and related is his face upon realising that a) Anna will die since he doesn't love her and can't save her and b) Elsa has murdered her own sister in cold blood.
After which he realises that both sisters will end up dead with legit reasons unrelated to him (if he wouldn't kill Elsa, someone else would, since she can't stop the winter herself and can't control her powers and has also committed sororicide against the de facto crown princess of the realm).
So a bit later, no wonder he has a grin of triumph on at the moment when he's about to become a celebrated hero, the saviour of the land, and a king
(yes, I've spent way too much time thinking about this damn movie ;_____;)
>>84231200
Wow, I can't believe tumblr is trying to ban cartoon characters they don't like, and get the government to censor them. Has anyone told the police about this?
>>84231791
What bothers me more is that there was no reason in the story to make him a villain besides adding a pointless twist and having an excuse for audiences not to feel bad for him when Kristoff turned out to be better for her. There was nothing leading up to him being bad. Hell, they even introduced the Duke of weaseltown to take the role of trying to kill Elsa and his goons could have just as easily replaced Hans as the people trying to kill her in the final act.
>>84238253
Yeah, it came out of nowhere for me too at first but on subsequent viewings those little touches hit me and I was kind of impressed.
It can be a fine line when you're trying to pull off a twist like that, and I can't really fault them for erring on the side of subtlety vs. beating the audience over the head with it. I mean, considering how often films (animated ones especially) learn toward the latter.
>>84232739
>Death of the Author is about prioritizing the author's actual work over their intentions, and if they didn't properly implement their intentions during the execution of their work, that's their problem.
So basically, if someone decides that what you wrote is sexist/racist/problematic, then it is. Because no amount of you explaining it isn't changes the text of the work, which they found to be "toxic", correct? Thanks social media.
>>84237417
>>84236394
Nah, he had a shit situation at home, was desperate to marry into a throne by any means necessary and came in to woo and marry Elsa. As Elsa was being very distant and he handily ran into the first-in-line princess who was obviously gagging for romance he switched plans and targets on the fly.
I think he liked Anna on the first meeting and found her attractive, but he just really, really did not love crazy at all and Anna's reckless whimsy and general irresponsibility got on his nerves and changed his opinion of her - so much that when she turned out to have gotten herself cursed to death after having pushed her sister into cursing the realm with her public tantrum he couldn't control his disdain any more.
>>84238621
Yeah, I think it's interesting how people ignore the Duke's villainy - Hans, after all, was a golddigger trying to marry money but appears to have wanted to be a good ruler, and who tried to keep Elsa and the citizens alive. He could have just let her take an arrow to the back at the ice palace, how tragic, it's all on weselton and not him, but instead he deflects the arrow and brings her to Arendelle - in chains, because she did sic a murderous ice golem on her own men after all, but unharmed, and begs her politely to stop the winter. He goes after her life when seems to be the only way to stop the winter and when it seems she's killed Anna, her own sister, intentionally.
Meanwhile the Duke declares his aim is to exploit Arendelle, he orders his men to assassinate Elsa just because she's magical, before she's proven herself to be dangerous, and also gets angry at Hans for using Arendelle's resources to help Arendelle's own citizens in dire need.
It's like they wanted to write an ambiguous character, but someone decided he has to be a CLEAR villain so viewers know what to feel, an and thus he had to be a sudden turbodouche complete with disdainful chuckling during the monologue.
>>84238621
Really what the should have done is make Hans a more tragic villain with Weselton a more overt manipulator. Give Hans a sincerity in the beginning with an increasing ambivalence after Elsa calls them out for wanting to get married immediately. In turn, have Weselton pressure and manipulate him once Anna rides off due to him seeing Elsa as a threat and Anna/Hans far more inclined to follow his political manipulations. The rest of the movie plays out with an increasingly desperate Hans acting more and more villainous as he tries to hold onto the crumbling hero narrative he's been led to believe about himself. To go along with that you rewrite Fixer Upper to be about Anna and Hans, give it to Weselton, and make it the villain song.
>>84239232
I don't know, on one hand I like the narrative choice that he's turned off by Anna's lolsorandom antics despite first being attracted to her, and that he feels pressured to fake love towards a girl he loathes because the marriage is his ticket out of a shitty home situation. This notion that not everyone will like or love you and people's opinions can change and people can seem adoring but their motives can be shady and so on, it's good stuff to have in a Disney movie.
But yeah he could have been more tragic while still being an opportunistic liar
>>84230713
Yeah not like Hans looked after all the people in Arendelle after their Queen fled like a coward. All those people would have starved to death because they were unprepared for Winter and even when Elsa was told about it she refused to leave her Ice Palace. Not that anybody cares though, she got to sing "Let it go" in a pretty dress on a mountain top
>>84231827
What the Author indented is irrelevant if they can't get it across on the page
>>84232621
I think you're headcannoned this hard. He tried to save her initially because he had no rights to the Kingdom and he needed her. After he got her back and found out she was dying he left her to it to get her out of the way and then lied about them saying their marriage vows. It was just convenient for him
>>84239372
Yeah, I wanted to get that point across through a redone Fixer Upper, where Hans basically has to be convinced that it's what he wants.
>>84230713
It still upsets me that they made him a villain just because they needed someone to fit into that role so they could check the "villain twist" box off on their "how to make a hit movie" list.
He could easily have still been wrong and yet not be the villain.
>>84239551
Yes, that doesn't conflict with what I said
Hans and Elsa were the only interesting characters. The other leads were kind of dull.
>>84232251
>In my understanding, if the author says "this character is crazy"
Do you think Chris Chan is a better judge of his own work than his readers?
Do you think Pepe's creator defined who Pepe was?
>>84238824
>So basically, if someone decides that what you wrote is sexist/racist/problematic, then it is. Because no amount of you explaining it isn't changes the text of the work, which they found to be "toxic", correct? Thanks social media.
>write something that reads like shit
>everyone agrees it's shit
>"I wrote it ironically, it's really a po-mo artistic meta-commentary on shitty writing so it's actually really clever"
Intentions just don't matter that much. They are outlasted by the actual work you put out there.
>>84240385
This works to some degree, but this is in the absence of further canon. It's silly to suggest that the creator's off page/screen input means nothing because for the most part, the creator's opinion of his/her characters will dictate what canon will be going forward.
For example, you can headcanon Elsa as homosexual all you want. You can come up with evidence, images, quotes, anecdotes, etc to prove your point, but if the people that OWN Elsa decide she isn't going to be homosexual, there isn't anything you can do about it aside from personally disregard canon, which is a whole level of autism all on its own.
Word of god so to speak is tantamount to canon because unless the creator changes their mind, it's canon.
>>84240385
Chris chan is a better judge on what his characters think and what their motivations are etc since he's the author, yes. The level of quality of his work is a different thing, and his writing can be shit without him realising it, but that's not related to the point I was making.
Also I don't think pepe the meme is the same character as the character in Boy's Club, it's just the appearance from one panel that got turned into a meme and evolved into a different thing unrelated to the original comic. But yes, Matt Furie defined who the character in his comic was.
I'm not quite sure what points you're trying to make or if you understood what I said
>>84232083
This. Smash-It Sam was pretty clear about who was clearly off and had a layer of villainy in them with respects to the rest of the world.
>>84238473
>yes, I've spent way too much time thinking about this damn movie
You're just giving it way too much credit
it's a fucking mess and we all know it
The inconsistencies are a result of changing the entire plot of the movie after most of it was done, months before the thing was supposed to come out all because someone said >DUDE WHAT IF THEY WERE SISTERS LMAO
>>84237390
OH NO! NOT THE SOURCE OF THE ETERNAL WINTER DESTROYING THE KINGDOM!
WHAT A MONSTER!
>>84231791
>It still bothers me that there was no scene before the reveal that even hinted that he was evil
I think that was the highlight for me because they didn't shoehorned into your heads "Hey, this guy is actually has bad intentions so keep an eye out on him!". I like surprises like that and what makes it even better is that his actions were too perfect and he knew what he was doing. That's just me but hey.
>>84238824
Yes and no. It means THEY had a read on it that's sexist/racist/problematic. But they can't (though people who misuse this often do) put any responsibility out there for that. Once you make an interpretation that ignores the author, you remove responsiblity from the author. He's dead remember? Also, your opinion matters exactly as far as yourself. Somebody else gets a different read as you, that's just as significant long as they can back up their interpretation (headcanoning somebody is trans based on "I want trans people" without citations is still bullshit). And both of your interpretations are as valid as the authors, but not any more or less and the same for a 4th person's interpretation.
>>84240876
I'm not gonna say Hans was a great or even memorable villain, and Frozen was like the most average Disney movie ever for me, but this is kinda how I feel too. So fucking many animated movies spell out who the villains are from the first second they appear and it's kind of refreshing that they at least tried for something different (King Candy was clearly an antagonist before him being the big villain was revealed).
Also Duke of Weselton would've been like the shittiest Disney villain ever if he had a bigger role and Hans wasn't evil. It felt like he was supposed to be a parody of that kind of obvious but still ineffective villain.
>>84234140
Frozen, Wreck-It Ralph, Big Hero 6, Zootopia...
Hey, we're getting into a rut!
>>84237362
That one was kinda telegraphed though since the movie is a partial homage to Chinatown.
>>84238253
There's a pretty big leap between putting up a front to try to get into a seat of power and outright trying to murder someone. Elsa made sense, since she was both in the way of his ascension to the throne AND her existence was freezing everything. He didn't have nearly as much to gain from killing Anna. Kissing her was a win-win situation. Either he cures her and he cements his place on the throne, or it fails and he goes "oh no, it's progressed too far. We need to execute Elsa ASAP. It's her only hope".
>>84238253
for me it was this exact face he makes during "Love is an Open Door", the "we finish each other's—" "SANDWICHES" part
something about it set an alarm off in my head my first time watching it
>>84238253
>so much that you can only see it on rewatching and specifically focusing on Hans' expressions
Not really imo. It was pretty clear something was off during their song. Even if you didn't consciously pick up on the actual little details, your brain is supposed to subconsciously warn you on the little tells in a person's face and voice when they're up to no good.
