Frozen is a bad movie.

I would like to congratulate Con on an excellent rebuttal! It was truly great and I will need to step up my game to ensure my victory. First, I can call you "hunny" if I wish to, according to a certain First Amendment you might be familiar with. I'd also like to say that everything Con said in her earlier rebuttals was an opinion as well, we just have two different ways of looking at the same thing. I see it in a bad light. Con acts like I never use reliable sources, when I am simply talking about the movie's plots and characters themselves. Also she says "and never uses and reliable sources,". I have no idea what that is trying to say.Con then goes on to nitpick my decision to "clump" up all my rebuttals together, despite me having a very clear number system to help readers understand what topic I am discussing. Since Con nitpicked my own debate, I have no choice but to point out that at the end of Round 2, Con literally pasted an entire topic twice. Go back and check. Now on to rebutting Con's rebuttal of 2) Con says that she never said that just because all Disney Princesses' fall in love makes it okay. She says that she finds it funny how I am picking on Frozen for this one particular problem, when I am quite obviously talking about things other than Princesses' love in this debate. Right after this she says, "yet most Disney Movies do exactly the same thing". Screw me if I'm wrong, but didn't she just say that she never said that just because all Disney Princesses fall in love doesn't make it okay, but here she is two sentences afterwards saying that in fact because most Disney Movies include this, I cannot pick on Frozen for this? This is a contradiction and faulty logic if I've ever seen it. Con's rebuttal of my description of Elsa is faulty as well, she is telling me that just because Elsa faced her fears for a couple minutes, she is a very brave person, when in reality, she snapped extremely quickly and deep-freezes the entire country. But was that really her fault? After careful thought, I concluded that, in fact, it isn't. However, the conclusion just goes even further to convey how flawed Frozen is. The people at fault here are the late King and Queen. They had no reason at all to hide Elsa powers from everybody, or to take away Anna's memories of her. No harm would have been done, and Elsa would have had love and support from the entire kingdom to help her, both mentally and physically. At the very least she wouldn't have had to stay in her room. Speaking about her room, how does she have such a slim body if she was cooped up in there for years on end? It seems like it would take some physical exertion to get and keep that nice of a body. Con doesn't even try to attack my description of Olaf, and in the world of debate, silence is consent. Con's decision to not even give a reasonable reason as to why she didn't rebut my paragraph is inexcusable. Con says that MY decision to skip her description of Kristoff is bad, however, she didn't give me any good elements of Kristoff to discuss. Everything she said about him was true, but I just didn't feel like bringing up the negative and flawed aspects of him. Con literally didn't even touch my last three paragraphs, and like I said before, silence is consent, so she must agree with everything I said or didn't have any evidence that would prove it wrong. All of the reasoning's I have mentioned in this entire debate were entirely produced out of my own speculation. I noticed Con simply copied and pasted many sections of text, which I wasn't originally going to do, as it seemed rather low. However, I'll add some other arguments I have read concerning this debate: Problem 2: Elsa Is Awful As well as having completely unexplained snow magic, Elsa is Frozen"s natural villain. She is also its natural hero, but despite this promising set-up she doesn"t actually achieve either distinction. She is a lump that sits in the film, too good to do any bad and too stupid to do any good. She is a character in no-man"s land. In fact, Elsa is helpless throughout the entire duration of the film, did anyone else notice that? ELSA, YOU"RE THE BLOODY SNOW QUEEN! Can you do something, can you please do something other than some (pretty sweet, I"ll admit) home decorating? In the original Snow Queen, the antagonist doesn"t just sit there, she is a character that takes what she wants, and the only glimmer we see of that in Frozen is in the excellent number Let It Go. This movie could have been what Wicked was to The Wizard of Oz, with Elsa the new misunderstood, complex Elphaba character. This film could have shown us that the Snow Queen isn"t a mere one dimensional villain, bent on ruining and then stealing children, interested only in anarchy and misery, but a real person with justified motivations, desires and insecurities. But it doesn"t bother. The opening minutes of Frozen hint at a deeper analysis of Hans Christian Anderson"s iconic villain. We see a young and vulnerable Elsa repressed for years by loving (if misguided) parents who then die tragically at sea. Surely, in the grips of grief and under the enormous pressure of being a royal figurehead at such a young age, it"s feasible that Elsa would lash out in justifiable, glorious anger at her lot? One of the biggest mistakes this film makes is that the deep freeze Elsa puts her kingdom under should not have been an accident, but an unadulterated emotional reaction spurred by the introduction"s fraught " and eventually shattered " family dynamic; a huge, icicle-fringed THIS IS NOT FAIR. That is motivation, that is drama and it would have made complete sense given the context that her frightened kingdom would think her a villain, but we the audience would know otherwise. In fact, Elsa"s motivation is perpetually underdeveloped; a trait she shares with the rest of Frozen"s motley cast. Take Anna, the protagonist, who conveniently manages to purge her own orphan angst by the end of the Do You Want to Build A Snowman? montage. For the most part, Anna"s job is to offer hollow declarations of trust in Elsa. How are we, as viewers, expected to buy Anna"s faith when she and her sister have been estranged for ten years? The more compelling storyline would have been to cast Anna as uncertain, even afraid, of Elsa, so the stakes are meaningfully raised when she sets off after her sister. It would have allowed room in Frozen"s dramatic climax for the scared and lonely Anna to get through to the equally scared and lonely Elsa, which would have been incredibly touching. And yet, again, Frozen fails to live up to its impassioned potential. Problem 3: In Fact, Every Character Is Awful Frozen"s emotional emptiness is, at least partially, due to the chronic underuse of any and all side characters who could actually add to the story"s depth. A shining example of this is Olaf. Now, don"t get me wrong, I love Josh Gad and I think he is charming and hilarious as Olaf, one of the most compelling characters in this movie. But here"s a question, pretty fundamental to his character: why does Olaf want to see the summer? Why? Does anyone know? It"s a great idea, but why? This film does absolutely no work to explain this. Had Disney utilised Olaf, who only appears momentarily at the beginning of the film, during Do You Want to a Build a Snowman?, they could have offered a proper insight into the relationship between the sisters and given him some very real layers. Picture this: if we had seen Anna building Olaf over and over in her loneliness, having him as her friend and then dreading the summer because he would no longer been around " or, dare I say it, even say to the inanimate Olaf that she wished he could see the summer " then not only would we have had a real appreciation of Anna"s loneliness, but also character motivation for Olaf wanting to see the summer and a walking, breathing representation of the isolation of two orphaned little girls. In fact for a film full of lonely characters, Frozen does a dreadful job of actually making that loneliness apparent. This is most obvious with Kristoff, the male lead. Kristoff is a poor, wise-cracking orphan " the gold standard of Disney heroes " but with none of the complexity or appeal of Aladdin or Simba. For instance, when he is introduced as a little boy and witnesses the interaction the Royal family has with the trolls (don"t get me started on the trolls), the viewer is led to believe that Kristoff"s knowledge of Elsa"s powers and her efforts to conceal them will come into play later (you"d be wrong) or that he will reveal to/or perhaps hide this information from Anna, perhaps causing a dramatic rift in their burgeoning trust and friendship for an emotional payoff (you"d be wrong), or that he will play an important part in having to save the kingdom (you"d be wrong). Sources: http://bestforfilm.com... Back to Con!