Resolved: Frozen is better than the Lion King

1) Complex Characters a) Hans Pro overstates the case that Hans’ “motives and behavior are unpredictable.” All his actions can be clearly explained by his true motive and there’s nothing really surprising about his behavior in light of his true motive. Once Hans reveals he is evil, he gives a clichéd movie villain speech and makes clichéd movie villain mistakes that lead to his undoing. Pro never addresses my point that Hans has a terrible reveal and stupid villain monologue. b) Scar Pro ignores my point that Scar is an “obvious villain” because the movie SHOWS US HE IS A VILLAIN. All the characters in the Lion King are unaware of Scar’s villainy. Mufasa trusts his brother, leading to his death. Following Mufasa’s death, Simba believes Scar that Simba killed Mufasa and follows Scar’s advice to “run away and never come back.” All of Hans’ strong points are shared by Scar! Scar teaches the same lesson about how evil people wear masks and often appear trust-worthy. Scar abuses the trust of people around him - he makes a dramatic speech before the Pride about Simba’s “murder,” he also tricks Simba into going to the elephant grave yard. Scar is a rounded character. He manipulates people and has a distinctive bearing and facial expression that conveys his belief that he is superior and disdainful of others. He was afraid of and felt inferior to his brother Mufasa. Hans is just generic good guy until it is revealed his a generic bad guy. c) Parents Pro doesn’t refute that the Lion King shows a developed bond between father and son and that Mufasa is a deep character. The Lion King is firing on all cylinders, whereas Frozen often coasts on superficial plot development. d) Sidekicks Even the sidekicks in the Lion King are better developed. Timon and Pumbaa both have backstories about how they are outcasts; they each have distinct personalities. Tying into my 2) argument, they are crucial to the plot and thematic development of the Lion King, serving as a foil to Mufasa. The Hakuna Matata philosophy of “No worries” contrasts with the philosophy of responsibility that Mufasa represents. Simba’s friendship with the two exposes the motivation and development of Simba- for example when the three discuss what they think stars are. The reindeer and snowman in Frozen are gimmicks. While adorable and funny, you could take them out of the movie and leave the story unaltered. Kristoff is more developed, but even he is mostly just the woodsman to offer material support to Anna. All the characters of the Lion King serve the goals of the movie. 2) Themes, plot, character a) Pro concedes that Elsa is passive and the resolution to her arc happens jarringly at the end of the movie. Pro’s only response is that Anna struggles with her problems. Even if Anna is a decent character, she doesn’t compare to Simba. Anna is deluded that she love Hans, everyone tells her she’s being unrealistic, she ignores them. There is no character development- Anna gets in danger, runs to Hans, Hans tries to kill her. This is when she realizes she actually love Kristoff - AFTER her original crush tries to kill her. Anna isn’t making big character-driven decisions or struggling with how to come to terms with her past, she is struggling toward fairly well defined goals. Pro’s characterization of Simba’s vision is emblematic of his entire argument- it is a superficial mischaracterization. Let’s break down the scene: Rafiki tells Simba to look into the lake to see his father, but Simba sees only himself and is disappointed. Simba’s initial lack of comprehension symbolizes that he has been living his life superficially- he needs to “look harder” at himself. Simba has little respect for himself- he is disappointed at his own reflection, especially compared to the impressive image of his father. The realization that his reflection “contains” the image of his father surprises Simba. Note- Rafiki creates ripples in the water, distorting the reflection, subtly indicating that the image of Mufasa is being reconstituted by Simba out of his own distorted reflection. Simba’s reflection transforming into Mufasa’s communicates that Simba’s identity contains his father’s. The reflection in the pond symbolizes what the ghost explicitly says. Simba has forgotten the values of his father and the community his father represented. Simba lives superficially, rejecting the responsibilities that come with Simba’s true self. The responsibility Simba has to the Pridelands is not some external burden placed on him, but is contained “inside him.” They are an important part of his identity and sense of self- by “looking inside” Simba will realize his obligation. The vision doesn’t say “get your sh** together,” the vision commands Simba to engage in the critical introspection that will alter Simba’s outlook- the ghost commands Simba to “remember.” This isn’t a clichéd guilt-trip. Simba struggles to accept this- he protests that he is “not who I used to be,” but this is false because his past defines who is- he can never escape it. The whole scene is a metaphor for a deep self-appraisal. This moment is organic; it contains the entire movie up to this point- we know what Mufasa represents, we know why Simba rejected it. It is a commentary on Simba’s initial flight- what started as fleeing for his life became a flight from the hard facts of who he is and what he has done. This scene represents how the Lion King is an incredibly “tight” movie- everything that happens, all the plot point and themes and characters, are all tied together coherently. Frozen tends to be “loose”- Hans didn’t really NEED to be evil; the dukes were already trying to kill Elsa and Anna was already learning her love was superficial. It was an interesting development but ultimately sort of superfluous to the story and sort of ham-fisted in execution. 3) Leadership and Governance Elsa clearly plans on leaving the castle in lockdown after her coronation- Elsa tells Anna that the castle “can’t” be open all the time, that the coronation is an exception. Elsa acted poorly in cutting off trade- the diplomat tried to kill Elsa because he believed her dangerous. Remember Elsa endangered the lives of the public, including the diplomat, at the coronation AND WAS CAUSING ETERNAL WINTER. Maybe Elsa should have considered the complexity of the situation. Extend that the Lion King displays different styles of governance and comments on the difference between cronyism and justice. Again, Frozen uses governance in a shallow way while the Lion King gives substance to the subject. 3) Aesthetically superior Pro doesn’t deny that the imagery of the Lion King has become embedded in our culture. Holding the cub Simba on pride rock, the ghost of Mufasa, and betrayal of Mufasa have been recreated innumerable times in popular culture. 5) Con’s Case 1) Pro’s criteria are superficial- he arbitrarily values “twists” and “real bad guys.” My criteria are holistic and accepting of artistic choice: movies should be evaluated based on how well the artistic choices advance the artistic goals of the film. Sometimes twists are valuable, sometimes they are unnecessary. An obvious villain worked great for the Joker in the Dark Knight, but sometimes villains are less clear. My argument is that the artistic choices of the Lion King work better together, while Frozen’s do not. 2) Again, commercial benchmarks are stupid. Both films were very successful, but the Lion King is more successful. Pro’s source is worldwide gross, but even then the Lion King is just short of Frozen’s $1b UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION- this means Lion King mad almost as much as Frozen, but in 1994 dollars. Then there’s the award-winning musical… 3) The “sex” scene argument is stupid. It’s just a scene showing how Simba’s relationship with Nala is becoming romantic. 4) Motivations and sequels are irrelevant. This debate is about the quality of two movies, all that matters is how the films stand up.