Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Voice?

Resolved

What does "After she gave birth, she re-recorded some lines as her voice had deepened, and there were 'more womanly tones.'" even mean? Did her voice become and stay deeper because of the pregnancy? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Music by:

As of me writing this, in the info box, under "Music by:", only listed Christophe Beck. I realize, that one only lists the composers, not lyricists in the "music by" credit. So, I am editing the page to include Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, as they both composed music for the vocal songs in addition to writing the lyrics. Unlike with many song writing teams where one person is listed as the lyricist and one as the composer, Anderson-Lopez and Lopez are jointly credited for the songs, thus sharing the composing and lyric-writing duties, and thus should be included in the "Music by' section in addition to Mr. Beck, since, as a team, Anderson-Lopez and Lopez composed the vocal songs, while Mr. Beck composed the score. I am editing the page to reflect this. - Jay22246 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The infobox field is typically only supposed to list film score composers and not include song composers. Similar examples include; The Lion King, Mulan, Winnie the Pooh, and The Muppets. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Critical response section misleading?

It feels like the positive reviews of Frozen, including the ones cited in this article, are largely back-handed, and mean to review the film as good in a formulaic way, but not in the "Disney Classic" way the section suggests by having the Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Aladdin comparison as its intro.

Making the comparison gives the impression that Frozen is being revered for its storyline, music, animation in the same way these films were originally hailed as raising the bar for future Disney films. Most of the top critics, NYtimes, Rolling Stones, Slant, etc seem to be passing the film off as being modeled after those films, but not really reaching the same caliber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.49.188 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

International Box Office figures don't add up

Resolved

The total sum in the first sentence and the individual amounts quoted in the second senctence don't add up (naturally, because they are quoted from two different sources :-). Sorry, but I don't have time to sort out the numbers from Box Office Mojo and correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.37.42 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on vs. Inspired by

I've seen some people on the web (and myself one amongst them) remarking that Frozen should be designated as "inspired by" rather than "based on" because of the vast differences from the original story. I was content with thinking it was just a matter of opinion (and perhaps it still is). However, I noticed when I saw the film again today that it says "inspired by The Snow Queen" in the official credit sequence — not "based on." Perhaps this is nitpicking, but I do see it as a difference and, if anyone agrees, I think it should be changed in the "infobox film" section. 98.233.161.32 (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Andrew

We don't seem to have the corresponding parameter in the template.Quenhitran (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

POC

Nothing about the controversy about the lack of poc people are crying about? --89.249.2.54 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it's a German story... why should there be black people in it? is that not in itself racist? INB4 accusations of racism. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Danish story, and because there are groups of people of colour living in the sorts of regions described in the original story. "Black people" no but certainly people of colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.1.77.242 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't critisized your use of "colour" so don't criticize my use of black people, where I'm from "african american" is seen as a derogatory phrase, and frankly your critique is pointless. and just because there may be black people in a country (weather they were there when the story takes place wasn't even specified) doesn't mean they were in the original story, you can't fault Disney for not changing the race of it's characters AKA revise history to appease some people that care far too much about trivial details. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The way this works on Wikipedia is someone needs to cite a "reputable" source complaining about racism in this movie before Wikipedia can mention it, not you or I or any other random smuck count or that would be "independent research". I do get the feeling after reading the Critical response section that this article is kind of one sided but with 87% RT score there are not too many reputable people complaining, even still I found this interesting nugget, accusation of sexism not racist: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/frozen-head-of-animation-says-animating-women-is-really-really-difficult-89467.html BerserkerBen (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Reputable enough source? http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/disneys-frozen-whitewashing-controversy

It contains oodles and oodles of references to examples.

Tried to include a few sentences on the whole stupid cntroversy, using the article above as source, but it got shot down within an hour...

Who shot it down, a random IP address? Just revert it (put it back up maybe in the the controversy section: rename "Portrayal of female emotions" back to "controversies"), if someone, especially a random IP address (which may or may not be a covert paid corporate wiki editor) deletes something and you disagree, then revert it, put a complaint here on the talk page, if they do it again we may need to go to wiki dispute resolution to handle it BerserkerBen (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

$1

"Frozen has earned $1 in the United States and Canada as of January 26, 2014 and $2 in other countries, as of January 26, for a worldwide total of $12 "

Doesn't this make little sense? The film made $1 in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.127.191 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Another editor took care of this apparent act of vandalism. It's been corrected to the cited figures. --McDoobAU93 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Night" or "Early morning"?

I've been watching revisions on this page for a month and I realized that many editors were confused if the sequence in which Anna and Elsa play at the beginning of the film took place at night or in the early morning. Therefore I think this issue should be discussed :D Quenhitran (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clearer to say "night" rather than early morning. The scene takes place when it's dark outside, so "night" is unambiguous. It's possible that "early morning" may mean 2 am or 4 am to some people (when it's dark outside), but others may interpret it to mean 6 am or 8 am (when it's starting to get light outside). AmericanLemming (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I've checked the original screenplay and they say "night". Perhaps others get confused because of Anna's words, "The sky's awake, so I'm awake, so we have to play." Quenhitran (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cryokinesis?

Resolved

I have reverted out the cryokinesis reference in the article, and asked that the person adding it bring forth a reference wherein a RS used it to describe Elsa's ability. It could be nanites, elemental familiars, guardian angels or plain, simple Disney (or ordinary northern European storytelling) magic. The point is, I suspect that an editor might be theorizing, and we don't do that here at Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are expecting an official announcement from Disney that their princess possesses cryokinetic powers then you're wrong. You'll never find one like that. But a number of sources are available on the Internet, and I'll cite some:

• http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/movies-entertainment/2013/11/26/frozen-reminds-us-that-disney-is-more-than-just-pixars-owner/ "Elsa was born, for some reason, with cryokinetic powers."
• http://canadaam.ctvnews.ca/movie-reviews/reviews-frozen-oldboy-philomena-and-armstrong-lie-1.1563260 "“Frozen” is the story of two royal sisters, the Princesses of Arendelle, Anna, a spirited adventurer (Kristen Bell) and Elsa, a cryokinetic queen (Idina Menzel) with the awesome power to manifest ice and snow."
• http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/Frozen "The Queen of Arendelle and a powerful cryokinetic."
• http://eyeofthetigernews.com/660060 "The movie starts amicable and cheerful as the two sisters play together until Elsa’s cryokinetic abilities cause her to hurt Anna, starting a chain of events in the movie that leads to Elsa abandoning her kingdom."
• https://www.dailyadvance.com/features/shirrel-rhoades-disney8217s-8216frozen8217-thaws-fairy-tale-2232173 "Just when you thought Disney had exhausted the genre, the House of Mouse has come up with yet another animated “princess” movie -- this one featuring one with cryokinetic powers."
• https://thecoastnews.com/2013/11/disneys-magic-is-in-full-display-with-frozen/ "However, Elsa has been suppressing her cryokinetic abilities due to her sister nearly getting killed once."
• http://blogcritics.org/movie-review-disneys-frozen/ "After Elsa strikes Anna in the head with her cryokinetic powers, the king and queen rush Anna to seek out the help of the nearby trolls."

Jedi94, 1ST7, McDoobAU93, AmericanLemming, please let us know your opinions. Quenhitran (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the requested references. You only needed one or two, and the combative attitude not at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I've marked it as "resolved". Both in real life and on wiki, I'd like to do things with a constructive manner. But don't consider "undoing" as something combative. Quenhitran (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Norwegian bias

Resolved

I do sympathize with the fact that the film's mainly Norwegian-looking setting is causing a lot of Norwegian enthusiasm, but the sources referred to talk of a general Scandinavian inspiration and the Maypole is rather Swedish.--Berig (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the confusion lies in that the setting and music are inspired mainly by Norway, yet the cultural references are Scandinavian, in that they're not specific to Norway but rather to Northern Germanic cultures as a whole. So I agree with changing most instances of "Norwegian" to "Scandinavian" in this paragraph, with the sole exception of the bit about the landmarks, as all three of them are in Norway.

However, as far as the two sources cited referring to general Scandinavian inspiration, that's true, but they're both blogs, so I'm not sure how reliable they are. In my opinion, I think we should say something along the lines of "the film is inspired by Scandinavia in general but Norway in particular", as that seems to be the case. But you're the Scandinavian studies expert, and I'm just a college kid who's 37.5% Scandinavian (12.5% Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish each), so you probably understand these matters better than I do. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing specifically Norwegian about a stave church (there is still a medieval one in Sweden), trolls, fjords, Viking ships, lutefisk or runes. While you find specific Norwegian references you also see a Swedish maypole. However, as for any cultural elements I'd be very wary of pinpointing anything as specifically Norwegian, Swedish or Danish. The three cultures are very close with internal variations and things people consider "Norwegian" or "Swedish" usually exists in similar forms in the other Scandinavian countries as well. Any statement like "Norway in particular" would naturally need to be backed up by reliable sources per WP:RS.--Berig (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How about starting the paragraph with "While the setting was principally based on Norway, the cultural influences in the film were drawn from Scandinavian culture as a whole and from Scandinavia's indigenous Sámi culture."? I think acknowledging that the setting is principally Norwegian could help readers and editors understand the distinction between the Norwegian setting and Scandinavian cultural influences that you've done a nice job of elucidating here on the talk page. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Remember that even though Sámis inhabit northern parts of Scandinavia, they aren't exclusive to that area. The Sámi domicile region (Sápmi) encompasses both the northern parts of Scandinavia and Finland, as well as the Kola peninsula in Russia. If you compare the scandinavian languages to the Sámi languages, you will find that they are very different. In fact, the Scandinavian languages are more related to Russian than they are to the Sámi languages. It would be wrong to categorize the cultural references – therein the cultural references to the Sámi culture – as Scandinavian. As per now the title of the paragraph is "Scandinavian inspiration", I would suggest it changed to "Nordic inspiration". Just to keep it unambigous an uncontroverisial. 129.242.61.43 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Scandinavian and Sámi inspiration" and "from the indigenous Sámi culture of Fennoscandia". Is that better? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If nobody else disagrees, then I think the current title should do. 129.242.61.43 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

Dr. Kenneth Libbrecht, a professor from the California Institute of Technology, was invited to give lectures to the effects group on how snow and ice form, and why snowflakes are unique.[41] Using all this information, together with advanced mathematics (the Material Point Method), physics, computers, and assistance from mathematics researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles,[46] the effects group created a snow simulator and snowflake generator called Matterhorn that allowed them to randomly create 2,000 unique snowflake shapes for the film.[43] The software was also capable of depicting realistic snow in a virtual environment and was responsible for rendering several key sequences.[34][45][47] "There you see [Kristoff] walking through and see his footprints breaking the snow into little pieces and chunk up and you see [Anna] being pulled out and the snow having packed together and broken into pieces. It's very organic how that happens. You don't see that they're pieces already – you see the snow as one thing and then breaking up," explained principal software engineer Andrew Selle.[45]

To be replaced with:

Dr. Kenneth Libbrecht, a professor from the California Institute of Technology, was invited to give lectures to the effects group on how snowflakes are unique and how they form through branching and plating. Using this information the studio created a snowflake growing tool, that allowed to create 2,000 unique snowflake shapes for the film. Another big challenge was how to deliver shots of heavy and deep snow that both interacted believably with characters and had a realistic sticky quality. Disney software engineers: Alexey Stomakhin, Lawrence Chai and Andy Selle, worked closely with researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles: Prof. Joseph Teran and Craig Schroeder, on the tech behind a snow simulator, eventually nicknamed Matterhorn, which was based on a Material Point Method. The tool was used in about 43 scenes where characters were interacting with snow. Engineering principles were used to produce a full range of different snow phenomena, including chunky and powdery forms of snow, as well as to simulate how snow reacts in different situations. "Snow is an important character in the movie," said Stomakhin. "We really wanted people to believe it's real." "There you see [Kristoff] walking through and see his footprints breaking the snow into little pieces and chunk up and you see [Anna] being pulled out and the snow having packed together and broken into pieces. It's very organic how that happens. You don't see that they're pieces already – you see the snow as one thing and then breaking up," explained Selle. "Snow reacts differently than other materials," said Teran, who's been a Disney consultant since 2007. "If you squish snow, it's going to get harder. But if you stretch it, it gets weaker and breaks apart. We took all that into consideration for the model."

Comments:

Basically, the snowflake growing tool and snow simulation tool (Matterhorn) are two separate things. And it would be good to emphasize that. Feel free to remove the citations, if 3 is too many, but they do explain important concepts behind the tech. All the reference are still valid. Also here is another one that was used: http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/math-wizards-create-snow-for-disney-263913.aspx

Stalexey (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for listing a request here. Well, the source is valuable, and I'm working on it. I'll post it after making some minor edits. Quenhitran (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 05:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

edit suggested

Please replace "132 hours" with "30 hours" in: The particular scene in which Elsa walks out onto the balcony of her palace is 218 frames long, each of which took more than 132 hours to render.[58]

The cited source is not credible and doesn't have any source for their information.

Here (http://www.animationmagazine.net/features/disney-ice/) in an interview with the director, Jennifer Lee, in which she is quoted as saying a single frame took 30 hours.

173.20.13.62 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the cited source is not credible"? By the way, the "30 hours" fact that you suggested had already been included in the article. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's citing Tumblr blogs as its source for these "fun facts". It's not reliable. I've removed it. As noted, the 30 hours statement is already cited in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate What about this one? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that the exact same text, word for word? I'm even more dubious now than I was before. If these apocryphal "fun facts" are floating around the Internet as clickbait, we must be very careful in our sourcing of it. If that single scene took two years to render, I'm sure a reliable source from WP:FILM/R will report it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, people are copying each other's work on the Internet regardless of whether it's right or wrong. This piece seems to be the writer's own research, hope it works. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? It uses the exact same words as the other rejected sources! Find an actual reliable source that doesn't repeat the claim verbatim. B class articles do not include urban legends. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a coincidence, there aren't many ways to express such an idea. It seems that you didn't read the source carefully... Anyway, I'm contacting some people who are involved, and an answer will be issued soon. I'll come back to this later. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Quenhitran asked for my two bits on this issue. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that there appears to be a LOT of clickbait floating around, but it's fairly obvious which articles have been drafted by real amateur journalists and which articles appear to be Astroturfed plants (because virtually the same article appears on multiple blogs). The screeninvasion.com article appears reliable enough to me, because besides the materials that were obviously obtained from a press kit, there appear to be photos in the article of the kind that one would expect from a journalist (a writer, not a photojournalist) visiting Disney Animation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section

Resolved

Well I added a controversy section for the above convtroversy and it was deleted within 2 hours by some IP address, honestly if anyone else cares pick up the issue, I given up fighting on wikipedia years ago. BerserkerBen (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There's been enough criticism over the ethnic stuff now that it deserves mention. Added something under the critical reception tag, with sources. Notably also sources that show how the film was actually well received within the indigenous Sámi community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.19.208 (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Aaand it's gone. I wrote an objective, three-sentence section about the criticism from the "no-PoC" camp, a section which also included the positive reactions from Sámi people. With references. Removed in half an hour or so. I'd believe some editor was on the Mouse's payroll, if it wasn't that it would make no sense to remove the praise from Sámi media and officials if that was the case.

Anyway: I personally think the complaints about no "PoC" are downright ridiculous, but it's now notable enough that it should be included.

The existence of an Internet meme doesn't give a subject notability. If even the African-American Film Critics Association lauds the film, that concern must be more outlier than mainstream criticism. --McDoobAU93 14:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, sources cited are all in Norwegian, therefore I couldn't review them...Quenhitran (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Google Translate is hardly a perfect tool, but it does give you the gist. In any case, I hope there's not a ban against citing non-English language sources on English Wikipedia, because that would really make it suffer... There's a lot of important sources out there not in English (particularly when the information needing sources concerns events in non-English speaking areas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.19.208 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a prohibition on the use of non-English sources on the English Wikipedia ... a reliable source is a reliable source regardless of its language. But if you're relying heavily on a non-English source for a potentially controversial addition, you may want to take some time and get it translated for other editors to review. After all, there is no deadline. --McDoobAU93 16:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be controversial to add that the movie is praised from one of the groups whose culture it draws inspiration from. For the "No PoC" thing, which is a controversy, I used an english-language source (Know Your Meme) which again has references to other English-language sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.19.208 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of sexism occurred[113][114][115] after head of animation for Frozen, Lino DiSalvo, said: Just edit this and copy and paste it if it gets deleted again, OR discuss reasons for deleting it first BerserkerBen (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, because they have to go through these range of emotions, but you have to keep them pretty and they're very sensitive too — you can get them off a model very quickly. So, having a film with two hero female characters was really tough, and having them both in the scene and look very different if they're echoing the same expression; that Elsa looking angry looks different from Anna being angry."

Some media commentators took this to mean that a difficulty exists due to a limited range of facial variation for recent Disney female cartoon characters because of the need to keep them "pretty."[113][114][115] A Disney spokesperson told Time that DiSalvo's quote was widely misinterpreted stating that he was "describing some technical aspects of CG animation and not making a general comment on animating females versus males or other characters."[113][115]"

This is what I had added and I don't see why it was deleted, I'm going to add it back in. BerserkerBen (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. An IP deleted this piece a few weeks ago but no editors have reacted to it, so I haven't questioned it since then.Quenhitran (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well if you see some 'ip address' delete it again please revert it, it is not like I'm going to come and check on this page everyday because some 'ip address' has being paid to delete these things at random on the behest of a company that shalt not be named without proof. BerserkerBen (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just want to paste this to be used in case its deleted again (which it was by some random IP address):

""====Portrayal of female emotions==== Allegations of sexism occurred following a statement from head of animation for Frozen, Lino DiSalvo:

“ Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, because they have to go through these range of emotions, but you have to keep them pretty and they're very sensitive too—you can get them off a model very quickly. So, having a film with two hero female characters was really tough, and having them both in the scene and look very different if they're echoing the same expression; that Elsa looking angry looks different from Anna being angry. ”

Some media commentators took this to mean that a difficulty exists due to a limited range of facial variation for recent Disney female animated characters because of the need to keep them "pretty." A Disney spokesperson told Time that DiSalvo's quote was widely misinterpreted stating that he was "describing some technical aspects of CG animation and not making a general comment on animating females versus males or other characters." Director Jennifer Lee also expressed her sadness towards the case, explaining that his words were recklessly taken out of context, and that he was talking in very technical terms about CG animation. "It is hard no matter what the gender is. I felt horrible for him. He was so proud what achieved in the movie. We never had such sophisticated rigs (the skeletal structure of the figures used to model characters on a computer) to show awkwardness and grief on a face. I'm so proud of them." she stated.""

Would just like to point out that there is controversy, regarding homosexuality, surrounding the cabin store owner, Oaken in Frozen. It is being pointed out by many religious sects and leaders. A few sources: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This stuff, though it may or may not be true. Should be noted in the article in a "Controversy" section for sure.

RhettGedies (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed in heading #16. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ranking and recent edit war

An IP editor has been adding an unsourced statement that Frozen is the number 1 grossing animation film. Anyone got a source? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is on the IP to add it. Someone is reaching out to them to try and find out why they can't post the information themselves (not knowing how to cite, for instance). I've posted a warning as they're now at 6RR and this really needs to stop. --McDoobAU93 02:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sequel

Does this piece of writing present a possibility for a Frozen sequel? An IP added it, but the source text seems so ambiguous that I'm not sure if it should be added to the article.

Andrew Millstein, general manager of Walt Disney Animation Studios, stated in a February 2014 interview with Hollywood Reporter he say about to a possible Frozen sequel: "At the moment, there's not a sequel on the drawing boards. Could there be? Sure. But we're not engineered around the predetermination of that."

ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 12:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering that to. Could the sequel (if there is one) be about Anna's kids and how Anna realizes how she used to be like that too? Dance3600 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Dance3600 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Set in Norway?

Why is this movie categorized as set in Norway? As far as I know this is set in Arendelle, not Arendal. My point is: Arendelle is clearly based on Norway, but it isn't explicit that Arendelle actually is in Norway and not some parallel universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.61.43 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have removed that category as well as Category:Films set in Europe. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that when the King and Queen of Arendelle die, that they were originally planning to go to Repunzel's coronation. Dance3600 (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Released by Walt Disney Pictures?

After a recent discussion with another editor, we have some doubts about whether Frozen is released by Walt Disney Pictures and this SERIOUS, NOT A JOKE. We found many articles on official Disney websites that do not mention the phrase "Walt Disney Pictures" at all when talking about Frozen or other animated films. For example, this article, which announces that Frozen reached $1 billion states that "[Frozen] is The Walt Disney Studios' seventh release to reach the $1 billion". Walt Disney Studios release, not Walt Disney Pictures release. Furthermore, this Disney website and this one do not mention Walt Disney Pictures at all. Even this Wikipedia article claims in the infobox that Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Animation Studios are separate divisions of Walt Disney Studios. What is even odder is that every animated film from Disney or Pixar that I checked says "released by Walt Disney Pictures" in the leading section (Up (2009 film), Wreck-It Ralph, Toy Story 3, Tangled, Monsters University, Bolt (2008 film), etc). However, there are no references in most cases. In the cases of Wreck-It Ralph and Monsters University, there are references that do not mention "Walt Disney Pictures", although they are supposedly supporting that claim. In order to start on common ground, though, I think we need a defintion of the word "release". For example, WP:MOS/Film says "Details about a film's release can include noteworthy screenings at film festivals and elsewhere, theatrical distribution and related business". So is "release" synonymous with "distribution"? If so, aren't all films from Disney and subsidiaries released/distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures? Spinc5 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight, but I do have the DVD case right in front of me and it says:

Walt Disney Animation Studios presents a chilly twist on one of the most humorous and heartwarming Stories ever told. "Disney Animation's best since The Lion King (William Bibbiani, CraveOnline) will melt your heart.

BOVINEBOY2008 12:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you search on the official California Business Search site, there is no entity called Walt Disney Studios or Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, but there is an active California corporation called Walt Disney Pictures whose incorporation date corresponds to the one described in the 2012 Disney Fact Book as the entity incorporated as the umbrella for their live-action and animated films. (There's no Inc. or Corp. in the name; California didn't require a corporation to be named as such until after 1983, and only for closely held corporations, if I recall correctly.) Furthermore, if you look at the Walt Disney Studios press releases, they show a list of Facebook links on the right and the logo shown is "Walt Disney Pictures." My guess is that they are probably trying to use Walt Disney Studios as a doing business as name for the entity formally known as Walt Disney Pictures, but I would be on thin ice to speculate. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to clear things up step by step, as I've worked on similar discussions regarding this issue; As Coolcaesar said, The Walt Disney Studios is simply the formal business name for The Walt Disney Company's studio entertainment division, which includes film production, music, theatre, etc. In that division exists Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, a theatrical distribution unit that releases Walt Disney Studios' films under several different banners. One of these banners is Walt Disney Pictures, often simplified to just "Disney" by the company now, which is probably why Spinc5 was not able to find its mention on Disney's websites (if you look back here, you'll notice it's the first banner mentioned). As that source states, this particular banner produces live-action films and also releases animated films from Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios under that same Disney banner (which is why Disney's castle logo is at the beginning of these films). Therefore, that is why Walt Disney Pictures is included in this film article and in those aforementioned Disney and Pixar animated films. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That clears things up. I feel like you all who are experienced with Disney stuff should use this information to populate Walt Disney Pictures with some references to avoid future confusion (it's already tagged with refimprove), and maybe explain some of these mechanics? At the moment, it seems like even the Disney wikia page on Walt Disney Pictures is more detailed than the Wikipedia article. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

one minor question

Does Hans qualify as an official Disney Villain? I mean he wanted to assassinate Elsa, didn't he? Visokor (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole "Disney Villains" and "Disney Princess" marketing plans depend on whichever villain/princess Disney chooses to promote at the time. If Disney decides to add Hans to the official "roster"—the one that includes Snow White's Evil Queen, Maleficent, Captain Hook, Ursula, et al—we'll certainly hear about it. There's already been rumblings that Anna will become the next Disney Princess, but that will be made official at some later date, most likely. --McDoobAU93 15:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Anna and Elsa are already Disney Princesses. Dance3600 (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. (Check the official list on princess.disney.com.) Disney holds a "coronation" ceremony for those characters selected to join the Disney Princess media franchise. For the newer characters, it's usually held at several months after the motion picture in which the character was introduced. Most likely they want to make sure the motion picture doesn't flop and the character has successfully established widespread brand awareness. Plus, by waiting a few months, they can whip up publicity around the ceremony and use that to push the character back into the news headlines. If they were to hold the ceremony too close to the movie itself, then the press release would be lost amid the flurry of movie reviews.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Timeline issues

I just reverted an edit by User:Quenhitran that ended up implying that Disney Animation moved forward into production in November 2012 even though the story still wasn't working. That does not appear in any source, and it would be amazing if they had done that. Lee, for one, mentions in several interviews how it's so important to get the story right. Because it takes so much labor to animate one scene, getting the story right helps to avoid discarding scenes and throwing away hours and hours of animators' work. The sources cited show that the production team thought they had "cracked" the script (Charles Solomon's turn of phrase in the Art of Frozen book) in November 2012, and actually started trying to make the film, then Del Vecho admitted in interviews that it became evident during that process in late February 2013 that the script still wasn't working and they had to keep revising the script right through the test screenings in June. (Which would likely explain the minor goofs in the latter half of the film.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Then rephrase it, so that readers with no background with the film can get what you want to say. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point---the problem is that the November 2012 event is currently indicated below that sentence. I'll clarify.--Coolcaesar (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Resolved

There were quite a lot of IP addresses vandaling around recently, and taking care of them is a big waste of time. Therefore I want to ask if a semi-protection is needed, perhaps until July 1 ,2014.Forbidden User (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Request here. But I think they will probably be rejected because the current status of vandalism is not excessive. You should wait till a more suitable time. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You do have a point.Forbidden User (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)