The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
Yes, captain obvious, that was the very point. The essence of the story is Anna redeeming Elsa through her unwavering love. Hans is a needless distraction, failing as both a love and villain story.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Miscellaneous Thought Thread
- Thread starter mickEblu
- Start date
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Didn’t you say that the reveal of Hans as the villain ruined Anna’s love story? Could you clarify what you meant by that? You seem to be saying something rather different now.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
I thought Phantom thoroughly disappointing in 1999. I cried about it on the internet together with the rest of the pitchforked mobs.
But time has been unexpectedly kind to it. It's not a good movie, but it is surprisingly rewatchable. You're never bored, as one is half the time ploughing through Last Jedi.
We're all used by now to the disappointing aspects, so these grate less. And the aspects that were good about PM have stood the time and often only made it stronger over time: the genuinely good world building, the art direction, the costumes, the pod racing, the duel of the fates.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
No, you I'm saying you simply misread it, as usual more eager to find fault than to make a genuine effort to what is actually said.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I have tried rereading your original post in light of your follow-up and am thoroughly confused. And yes, I really did make a genuine effort. But since you won’t answer my question to clarify, it’s time to move on.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
That's the key, they are rewatchable. I can't rewatch the sequels. Does anyone want to buy a steel book or limited fold out of TFA or TLJ (never bought ROS)?
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
Then I'll make a genuine clarification in friendliness and good faith. Frozen introduces Hans as the love interest of one of the two protagonists. They share the rather lovely Love is an Open Door scene together. Subsequently their love story is not followed up anymore as the movie progresses, Anna being occupied by more pressing affairs and new characters. Only for Hans to be belatedly introduced as the movie's villain. In a mirrored fashion to the love affair simply fading off into nothingness, this reveal comes without any meaningful build up of tension.
Quite apart from Hans the dullest villain ever obstructing the development of Elsa as a more complex and darker character. It also ends Anna’s own love story with Hans, something which is not precluded by her going solo and meeting Kristoff (he's into reindeer anyway). I'd have preferred her to be a princess in love whose story doesn't end upon meeting her prince, but who combines that with pursuing other goals, such as plowing her way through the entire and now frozen known world to save her kingdom. Her simply growing out of a relationship however feels a bit beyond the scope of a Disney fairytale. Furthermore, the setup is that Anna had it all, comfort and love, and yet gave preference to an uncertain quest to save her oldest love, Elsa. When her lover is later revealed to have been a backstabbing villain anyway nothing was ever left behind.
TL,DR: imagine if Philip later turned out to have been but a weasel, what is left of 'I know you, I walked with you once upon a dream' anymore?
I don't remember hating or loving it. But I agree time has been kind. Time and nostalgia will do that. I think there is enough there for my son to enjoy. A cool villain, pod racing, light saber battles. Like you said we remember more of the good and less of the bad stuff. Now, Attack of the Clones? Im not sure I'll see the re-release of that one. Don't have as much nostalgia for it. Phantom I was a junior in high school and I can remember the hype and all the cross promotion. Attach of the Clones I was in college and probably already slightly disappointed by Phantom Menace. Im not even sure I saw Attack of the Clones in theaters.
Last edited:
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
That's exactly how I interpreted your post, which is why I responded as I did. But then you followed up to say that I'd somehow misread what you'd written. In light of this clarification, I suppose I can only be accused of disagreeing with your point, not of misreading it.
Too Many Hats
Well-Known Member
I’m surprised by the subdued reaction to this. Seems like a big deal to me.
IDK if I really want a Country Bears overlay of GRR. For one thing, DCA needs more attractions, not another overlay. Moreover, I’m not sure the Country Bears would really make sense with the attraction’s existing postwar National Park vibe. And I’m not really on board with reworking the attraction to be more cartoony; I appreciate the sophistication and subtlety of its current aesthetic (sophistication and subtlety are in short supply at DCA).
That said, a new CBJ show (in place of the existing Redwoods kids area) would be a wonderful addition for DCA. Even the corny new MK version where the bears sing Disney songs would provide a desperately-needed quality family attraction for the park. And lots of AAs.
I agree. I don't even think a CBJ show makes sense in Redwood Creek but I'm kind of here for it. With that said, the Challenge trail is a lot of fun for the kids. They love it. Last time we went to Disneyland they had more fun at Goofy's Play yard than MMRR. I can only imagine an AA show. I'm not sure the Big Al statue means anything but it’s a nice reminder of old school Disney workmanship and charm. Curious, why do you think this is a big deal? If I’m not mistaken they’ve had CBJ characters walk around the land in the past.
If a CBJ Show or a little Disneyfication of GRR saves Grizzly Peak for another 20+ years I’m definitely in favor. Much rather have that than it be bulldozed for a single IP land.
Consumer
Well-Known Member
Do you mean thematically? CBJ was originally designed for the Mineral King ski resort, just outside of Sequoia National Park. If you mean removing the Challenge Trail in favor of CBJ, I can understand that. Honestly, I don't see why it would be necessary to. There's a plot of trees to the north, just west of Soarin', that could comfortably fit a theater.
You know, the more I think about it the more I think putting CBJ characters on Grizzly Peak is plausible. I could see them doubling up on a few of the AAs they re building for the new show in Florida. Play the soundtrack and boom. You have more demand for a ride that has very low wait times half of the year and in the evenings. Merch sales skyrocket and most of the critical hardcore fan base probably applauds you too.
I know. In that sense it actually makes even more sense in Grizzly Peak than it did in Critter Country/ Bear Country. No I mean it doesn’t fit with the more realistic feel of the land but hardly something I think is a big issue. I’d be ok with Grizzly Peak becoming the Bear Country of DCA. It would still look and feel the same.
There is? Enough room for a theatre? I’m trying to picture that area. But yeah I think losing the Challenge trail for an AA show would be a big loss for the all the kiddos.
Consumer
Well-Known Member
The CBJ theater at WDW is, roughly, 723 sq meters. This plot in DCA is roughly 2,500 sq meters. Even if you only take into account the plot south of the Monorail track, that's still over 1,000 sq meters.
Do you think it would be possible without ruining sightlines and atmosphere?
Last edited:
Consumer
Well-Known Member
I don't see any reason why not. The only real trouble I can think of is figuring out what to do with the Monorail track.
MoonRakerSCM
Well-Known Member
"Hey, we have bears here, lets put this bear here. People like bears."
Yeah the monorail would be the biggest hurdle. I was just wondering how getting rid of most of those trees would impact sightlines.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Exactly. You have to wonder what the thought process was here, if there even was one.
Who makes these decisions to place random statues in the park? And does that person have any responsibility to adhere to their alleged "storytelling' design skills that clearly placed this area of DCA as a California State Park circa 1961?
Was there any process here at all? Or did some middle manager just dump that there without checking, or knowing?