I’m a bit worried that Disney will approach the story like they did with Tangled. While I enjoyed Tangled, I wouldn’t call it one of Disney’s better efforts. It felt a bit irrelevant and didn’t take itself too seriously. On the other hand, it was in line with Pixar films. Anyway, I just hope Disney doesn’t do this with Frozen or else they would be repeating themselves.
I, on the other hand, believe that Tangled was the best and more relevant Disney film in years. Probably since the end of the Renaissance, but I should check out the list before making that statement official.
The very fact that “it was in line with Pixar films”, as you say, makes it far superior to anything Disney had done recently.
I hope they can carry on with that brand of quality from now one, at least for a while, to mark another glory period for the studios.
Yeah, I think Disney has been getting better since Eisner stepped down. Even Meet the Robinsons to some extent even though its flawed. Particularly the film’s first half. Anyway, judging by Kristen Bell’s backround, this could be a musical.
We have an official announcement from Disney! d23.disney.go.com/news/2012/06/f … mber-2013/
November 2013 is the projected release date. Idina Menzel will voice the Snow Queen and Kristen Bell will voice “Anna.” It seems that they’ve changed the story a bit.
“In Frozen, a prophecy traps a kingdom in eternal winter, so Anna (voice of Bell) must team up with Kristoff, a daring mountain man, on the grandest of journeys to find the Snow Queen (voice of Menzel) and put an end to the icy spell. Encountering Everest-like extremes, mystical creatures and magic at every turn, Anna and Kristoff battle the elements in a race to save the kingdom from destruction.”
Is Kristoff just going to be someone Anna (presumably the Gerda figure) travels with, or is he a love interest? Will Kay even exist here?
Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez are the songwriters. They’re the team behind Book of Mormon and they also wrote original songs for Winnie the Pooh last year.
The story changes worry me, but… IDINA MENZEL, GUYS. IDINA MENZEL AS THE SNOW QUEEN. However this turns out, I have no doubt that she’ll be phenomenal in the role.
I’m really digging that plot idea. The only thing I’ve disliked about the film so far is the title.
Well, maybe the title change is in order, since the plot is so different to the original story.
I like the premise of this movie. Still a but bummed about it being 3D but if it’s in the style of Tangled I’ll be fine.
The plot really seems interesting and something ambitious.
You guys have NO idea how stoaked I am for this! I kind of was before, but now I’m so happy.
Because I found out that Bobby Lopez will be doing the music for this movie alongside his wife.
Bobby worked on the music and lyrics for two of my favorite Broadway musicals: Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon. Both of which recieved Tonys for Best Musical.
For those of you unfamiliar with his work, just know that he is extremely talented. I reccomened both those musicals, if you’re old enough. They’re for adult audiences only.
I really like Disney for their creativity in the past to expand on the fairy tales, but this story change almost seems to have nothing of the original fairy tale! 
I’m a little sad at that, because I was hoping Disney could really make sense of the original, I was excited to see how they’d show the band of thieves (my favorite part), and I loved the relationship between Gerda and Kay. 
Still, they’re probably gonna reference to the original here and there, at least I can look out for that. I’m just as excited as you are to hear Idina Menzel’s in it! I trust she’ll sound as amazing as she did in Wicked.
I’m wondering what the design of the Queen will look like because I’m hoping that she doesn’t look like the ice queen from Chronicles of Narnia.
The White Witch generally looks like the Snow Queen in books and other illustrations, but as they didn’t go that way in the film adaptation, I suppose Frozen can stick to the classical look.
I hope that, despite being voiced by Menzel, she doesn’t look like her. The Queen is gerally a beautiful woman with very bright blonde hair (or e even white).
I like the Jane Fonda version, despite the film not being that great.
I heard the news some time ago that Disney suddenly changed this to CGI, and all I can say is I’m disappointed. I mean as far as I know Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, and Tangled were all planned to be CGI from the very start anyway, but now they’ve decided to just take a film that was intended to be hand drawn and force it to be CGI instead, because they just seem so scared that an animated film can’t be good or successful if it’s not and still insist on catering to what people are used to nowadays. Also there’s the question of what kind of things the story could possibly have that would require it to be all CGI and not something that they could just do traditionally. I can only assume it’s going to be so they can have a lot of realistic snow or something, but is there any real reason why the characters need to be CGI as well? I guess I’m so unhappy with the way Disney’s films are turning out because before Princess and the Frog came out I honestly thought that all the CGI stuff they were doing was just going to be “a phase”. In fact I believe the whole reason they made Chicken Little in the first place was because:
-
The idea they started having that they needed to abandon 2D films cause of thinking that people only cared about CGI now and that those were the only films being successful.
-
Because I think that it was getting to be uncertain at that point if they were still going to have Pixar or not and they needed to see if they could do those kind of films on their own.
Now they not only still have Pixar, but they still think they need to be doing this when I just feel that they don’t. I never complain about a Pixar film being CGI because their films were meant to be that way from the start. But Disney, what’s the point? You have a CGI studio. You don’t need to be one yourself (especially when it means you’re having two of them coming from the same source). But yeah, I hate to say it but I don’t think I’m going to be wanting to see this film. In fact I’ve even kind of convinced myself already that I’m not going to want to see any CGI Disney films in theaters or on DVD/Blu-Ray until I see another 2D film from them again. That’s just cause I don’t want to feel like I’m telling them “I like that you’re doing more CGI than 2D, and I don’t care if that’s all you’ll ever do now!” because that’s not how I feel about it at all.
This film is just a letdown for me, more so than ever now just cause of knowing that it wasn’t even meant to be a CGI film. Disney only changed it cause they’re afraid of failure.
^ Believe me. Your not the only one that was bummed when they changed it to 3D. And their past efforts would’ve been mega hits if Disney properly marketed the damn movies. And another thing was choosing wrong release dates. While Princess and the Frog did good at the box office, Disney released it a week before avatar. And we all know how much cash Avatar raked in don’t we?
And then we have Winnie the Pooh. Ok first of all, who’s the moron at Disney who thought it would be a good ideas to release this at the same time as Harry Potter 7.5? Did they honestly want this film to bomb.
If they think Tangled was a huge success because it was in 3D, then they are dead wrong because look at the Simpsons Movie for example. It was hand drawn and yet it was a huge success and do you want to know why? Because it was marketed well and a good release eye was picked for it. These same factors are the same reason why Tangled was a hit.
So with that said, there was no damn reason what so ever for Disney to change this film from Hand Drawn to GGI. Nothing is wrong with the art style, they just need to learn how to market their films the right way. I swear I’m going to erupt if they make that Mickey Mouse movie CGI.
The ones who poorly marketed those films were M.T. Carney and all of the cronies at the marketing department. Tangled, on the other hand, was a surprise hit since they aggressively marketed that film. As bad as the trailers and T.V. spots were (particularly the first trailer), they obviously appealed to the masses. What a strange twist.
Well thank god that Carney guy was fired then.
M.T. Carney was actually a women. I have nothing against her, but I don’t think she was fitted for the position she was in.
With director Chris Buck (Tarzan, Surf’s Up), it’s a reasonable guess that Frozen will feature some very kinetic “ice surfing” scenes, along the lines of Tarzan’s jungle-riding and the surfing penguins. Also, the canyon/waterway scenes in Tangled come to mind. Such scenes lend themselves to computer animation (including the use of Deep Canvas on Tarzan), which might be one practical reason that Frozen is being CG-animated instead of hand-drawn.
In any event, extrapolating from the quality of Tarzan and the very underrated Surf’s Up, Chris Buck’s involvement bodes well.
That.
People are prone to attack the CGI change when they still don’t know the details.
In all probability, there’s a reason for it. The technique should be determined by the story you’re telling.
I’m still not wanting to see it, though. Plus I still fail to see the reasoning to have 100% CG characters and what difference in story that could possibly make (especially in comparison of Tarzan’s 2D characters in the Deep Canvas environment, as mentioned already). Wreck-It Ralph is the one that’s really suited for CGI cause of all the video game cameos and their accurate-to-the-game designs. Like I’ve said though, even if you could do it all-CGI it’s always been Pixar that I’ve gone to for those type of films, not Disney. There isn’t really anything bad about attempting these story ideas in such a way (like there wasn’t anything bad about The Incredibles being a CGI superhero film), but for me it gets to be a problem when pretty much everyone today is doing things like that. I never questioned the necessity of The Incredibles for being CGI like I do with Frozen because it was coming out of Pixar, a CGI studio, and even though Brad Bird developed it as a 2D film, the difference in his case was that it was only changed to CGI because he brought it to a CGI studio. Frozen wasn’t changed to CGI because someone else brought the idea to a “CGI studio”. It was changed because it was developed to be one thing at Disney and then changed to another. It’s not like Pixar has ever developed their films to be anything other than CGI or randomly changed their method of doing any particular film. Today’s Disney, in my mind, is really a studio that I like to think should still be a hand drawn studio but instead is trying too hard to be a CGI one and not something different, so I feel as though I have a reason to question their choices more than I do Pixar’s.