Resolved: Frozen is better than the Lion King

Overview: I advocate a holistic framework to evaluate the quality of films: we should judge by how well the artistic choices serve the artistic goals of the film. This framework considers all aspects of the film- character, plot, music, visual effect- without imposing arbitrary judgments. My opponent advances a framework in which a movie is “better” based on how well it conforms to Pro’s narrow preferences: a movie is better if it has a big twist, better if the villain’s motives are hidden, better if its songs have more Youtube views. As I argued in R3, this framework is arbitrary and counter-intuitive. Under Pro’s framework, Hans is a better villain than Heath Ledger’s Joker or Darth Vader simple because you KNOW right away that the Joker and Vader are bad guys (you can tell just by looking at them!). When evaluating which movie is better, judges should consider which movie best achieves its artistic goals. Line-by-line Rebuttal of Pro’s R4: Hans: Pro misses my point- Hans is NOT “unpredictable.” He acts like a predictable generic good guy, then we find out he is the bad guy, then Hans acts like a predictable generic bad guy. Hans is such a predictable and generic bad guy that he gives a generic and predictable movie villain monologue then leaves the protagonist unsupervised so that the protagonist can escape. This is the definition of a generic villain routine. A surprise reveal of hidden motive doesn’t make a character complex or unpredictable. Note that Pro offers ZERO analysis of Hans’ character! All of Hans supposed strength rest on the surprise reveal- that is all Pro has to say about Hans. Without that reveal, Hans is not an interesting character. Scar: Pro repeats that Scar is an “obvious villain” without addressing that this is only so because the movie shows us Scar’s secret plots. The characters in the movie don’t know Scar is a villain- they even trust Scar and make decisions based on his advice. Pro ignores that Scar captures all the advantages of Hans- Scar shows that seemingly trustworthy people are often phony. As Simba’s uncle, Scar shows how authority figures can mislead. Pro also ignores my character analysis of Scar in R3 showing complexity of character. Compare this to Pro’s total lack of analysis regarding Hans. Sidekicks: Pro ignores that the reindeer is a gimmick. I concede that Kristoff is needed, but Pro doesn’t refute that Kristoff is one-dimensional and offers little by way of character development. Olaf is superfluous as he does nothing that Kristoff’s character could not have done. Pro says “take out Timon…everyone still gets to stay alive” ignoring that Timon and Pumbaa SAVE SIMBAS LIFE IN THE DESERT. Pro counters my argument that the sidekicks in Lion King are a vehicle to expose Simba’s evolution of character and act as a foil to Mufasa by noting that Olaf helped Anna up a mountain. This shows how every aspect of the Lion King serves the artistic vision of the film, while Froze tends toward superficiality. Plot: Pro says I just “rely on opinion,” despite the scene analysis I offer as an example of how Lion King infuses plot with symbolism and meaning. Pro doesn’t refute or even acknowledge my analysis, he just brushes it off. Pro offers no explanation of how Anna shows character development, he just asserts that pursuing goals counts as development. He ignores my point that Anna’s major “development”- the realization that she loves Kristoff- only happens once Hans tries to kill her! Compare this to my detailed explanation of how Simba is shown to make deep and difficult decisions. Pro also concedes that Elsa is a passive protagonist and that her storyline is resolved haphazardly in a lazy deus-ex-machina. Governance: It is irrelevant that Elsa only ALMOST slaughtered her kingdom on ACCIDENT. The diplomats had reasonable grounds to fear Elsa and want her dead. Elsa responded by whimsically cutting of trade relations without even trying to come to a diplomatic solution. Pro also ignores that Elsa planned to continue the castle policy of shutting the doors and ignoring the kingdom. Elsa and Anna were terrible rulers. Inclusion of Leadership and Governance was an artistic choice Frozen made, but they fare very poorly by it. In contrast, the Lion King speaks volumes on loyalty to community, social order, justice, and the folly of cronyism. Other arguments: Pro’s argument about DVD sales supports my argument- COMMERCIAL STATISTICS ARE A STUPID WAY TO COMPARE THE QUALITY OF MOVIES. It's apples to oranges. If Pro insists on doing so, then the fact is Lion King is more commercially successful than Frozen- regardless of Pro’s predictions for future DVD sales. After all, maybe people will forget about Frozen in 20 years. We KNOW that after 20 years the Lion King is still a huge force in popular culture. Sequels are irrelevant- the Resolution is about “the Lion King” not “the Lion King and its sequels.” The argument about the “sex” scene is stupid. Again, it’s just a romance scene; Pro is the one calling it a sex scene. Only vote on this argument if you can post in the comments a screen shot of Simba penetrating Nala – AND IT HAS TO BE FROM THE MOVIE. Evaluation of Arguments: Almost all of Pro’s arguments rest on the “twist” in Frozen. All of Pro’s character analysis rests on this, as does his claim that Frozen was less predictable. But Frozen wasn’t written by M. Night Shamalayan, the goal of the movie isn’t to explode your head with a twist. Frozen is about the relationship between two sisters, self-expression, and the nature of love and loyalty; Frozen’s “twist” only exists in service of exploring those goals. Frozen is a movie that doesn’t want to be shallow, it wants to develop deep characters and themes. This is why it falls short of the Lion King- it just doesn’t deliver on the goals it is pursuing. Even if Pro wins that Hans is a superior villain, which he won’t, I have still provided far superior analysis of how Simba is a much deeper character than Elsa and Anna and that the sidekicks in the Lion King are more complex. The protagonist is who the movie is about- a strong protagonist counts more than a strong villain. This is especially striking since Pro claims one of Frozen’s themes is “you can’t lock yourself away to solve all your problems.” But I explained how Elsa repeatedly locks herself away, behaves passively, and receives an abrupt solution to her problems. Frozen doesn’t deliver on the plot and character development needed to support one of its central themes, illustrating just one way Frozen falls short. Contrast this to all the analysis I made regarding Simba’s development- I am clearly winning the protagonist side of the debate. You can cross-apply the above analysis to show that I am winning that Lion King is far superior in terms of thematic development. Pro offers no explanation of how Frozen develops theme, while I have offered ample analysis. Thematic development is another goal that Frozen fails to deliver on, while the Lion King excels. Pro’s arguments about songs on Youtube and a 2 minute romance scene are minor- I think I won these points but even if I didn’t, the other aspects of the movies are much more important. Finally, I have shown that the aesthetics of the Lion King are superior. I argued that the visual scenes of the Lion King are superior and that these visuals have become embedded in our cultural language, as the image of pride rock is. Even if you dismiss these arguments as “just my opinion,” I still have offered a scene analysis of Simba’s vision that shows the poetry of visual imagery and dialogue of the Lion King. Pro offers no argument for similar aesthetic achievements in Frozen. While Frozen has aspects that work well, it also has many that do not. The superiority of the Lion King ultimately comes down to its unity of vision and sleek execution. Everything works toward developing deep characters that give life to complex themes of responsibility and identity, all while maintaining a rich aesthetic.