Disney, Opinions, The Latest Animation News

Tangled vs. Frozen: Which Is The Better Movie?

Share on Pinterest

Of late, there has been a heated, ongoing debate in the Disney fandom as to which of the two recent animated hits – Tangled and Frozen – is the better movie. In this article, we try to analyze nearly every aspect of the two movies, and although this isn’t a definitive opinion piece, we attempt to break it down scientifically. Kind of.


tangled-vs-frozen-disney copy

TANGLED (2010) is Walt Disney Animation Studios’ 50th Animated Feature Film. It was a box office hit with a worldwide collection of $590 million and marked the first time CGI animation was used for the traditional Disney princess musical “formula”. It garnered critical acclaim and went on to become one of Disney’s most popular films of all time.

Tangled UK Poster

FROZEN (2013), Disney’s 53rd Animated Feature, built upon the success of Tangled, and turned out to become a critical and commercial sensation, with $1.2 billion at the global box office (the highest grossing film of 2013) and two Oscar wins. It has found its way into popular culture and has become the most commercially successful animated film ever.

frozen-poster-cast-new (2)


Back in 2010, Tangled was considered to be one of the most beautiful looking animated films ever created. The animators worked hard to create a “painterly look”, blending hand drawn and CGI techniques. As a result, we have a film that is visually stunning. Rapunzel’s hair is the scene-stealer. It shimmers, glows and moves fluidly, making it a marvel of modern animation. Characters’ facial expressions are lifelike, as seen especially in Mother Gothel. Colours are eye-popping and bright, with vivid greens and pinks popping out all around. Clothes have intricate patterns and embroidery and look realistic. Silk and leather are instantly recognizable, as are gold crowns and jewels. And the iconic lantern sequence is the movie’s star attraction.

Frozen takes a different approach to its animation. Characters aren’t lifelike, rather, veer towards a more cartoony look. Snow and ice are the stars of the movie. Special software was created to emulate the translucency of ice, as well as the unique properties of snow. Elsa’s ice gown is a masterwork of animation and design. It sparkles, glitters and looks incredibly ethereal. The climactic blizzard is another unprecedented milestone, and Elsa’s ice palace is something to behold. It looks chillingly real and sends a shiver up your spine. Frozen also features the same level of detail seen in Tangled. Wooly fabrics, beautiful rosemaling, textures and embroidery, it’s all there. Check out the tiny snowflakes in Elsa’s hair!

WINNER: TANGLED. The glossy, polished and detailed visuals trump Frozen‘s by a narrow margin.



Both Tangled and Frozen are fairytales with a psychological story at their core. Rapunzel is held captive by her “mother” for eighteen years, yearning to break free and see the world. Anna and Elsa are sisters torn apart by a secret, which drives Elsa to fear the world. However, on the basis of pure entertainment, Tangled’s story stands out as being more enjoyable, cohesive and satisfying by the time we reach the end. Frozen,despite its stellar opening and first act, sort of loses its drive in the final act, which falls rather thin and contrived. Sure it all wraps up neatly with a bow, but the ending of Frozen, lets be honest, leaves more to be desired. Still, Frozen manages to focus on much more mature themes such as fear and betrayal.

Which is the more quotable movie? We’d probably say Frozen. Although we love saying “They just can’t get my nose right!” whenever we see pictures of ourselves.

WINNER: TANGLED. Frozen gets points for a dark, female-driven tale, but let’s face it: Tangled just has a more fun story, which remains strong and engaging throughout and never fizzles out.



The characters in Tangled tend to rely on each other to develop (hence the title). Rapunzel is perky, feisty, but still a little dependent on events around her. Flynn Rider is hilarious and commands most of the movie’s humor. With Gothel, we also have a great villain (although far from Disney’s best) who is manipulative and evil. In Frozen, the characters are more well drawn and we tend to not only relate to them, but root for them. Anna’s wide-eyed optimism, Elsa’s internal conflict, Hans’ motives and Olaf’s yearning for summer, these are all characters who we feel for on a more personal level. Plus, we know characters like them in our day to day lives. We believe in them.

WINNER: FROZEN. The characters are varied, relatable and more lifelike than those in Tangled. We connect with them and their problems more easily.



Music can make or break a Disney movie. Tangled has a fun bunch of songs that, while fun to listen to and sing along, don’t stand out very much in the Disney songbook. An exception is the beautiful “I See The Light”, a song about opening your eyes to love. Another great song is “Mother Knows Best”, where Broadway’s Donna Murphy brings down the house. The songs by Disney veteran Alan Menken and lyricist Glenn Slater are, overall, pleasing but run the risk of getting boring too quickly. Menken’s score, however is much better, incorporating guitars and folk instruments to create a fairytale sound that is instantly memorable (“Kingdom Dance”, anyone?).

For Frozen, Disney roped in a relatively new songwriting duo, husband-and-wife team Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez, who succeed in bringing a fresh energy to the Disney musical. The very opening of the movie (set to a traditional Sami Vuelie) feels classy and reminiscent of The Lion King. The songs are epic and have a very Broadway feel. Standout songs include the  poignant “Do You Wanna Build A Snowman?”, the satirical “Love Is An Open Door” and the soaring “Let It Go”. “Let It Go”, performed by Broadway legend Idina Menzel as Elsa, is the movie’s most powerful moment. It’s not an “I Want” song, it’s an “I Am” song, and one that children will be singing for decades to come. Equally memorable is the score by Christophe Beck, which succeeds at every level. It’s one of his best musical scores to date.

WINNER: FROZEN. Hands down, this is Disney’s most musically powerful movie since the 90s era.



And the winner is…nobody. Let’s face it: both Tangled and Frozen are movies of a great caliber, and among Disney’s very best. To put one above the other wouldn’t be fair to their own individual merits. While Tangled has a stronger story and crisper visuals, Frozen wins for its characterization and music. It’s perfectly fine for us Disney fans to argue which movie is superior (because apparently it’s what we do), but at the end of the day, both are fantastic films which can be revisited numerous times. And to be honest, we love them both.



We now turn this debate over to you: which do you prefer? Are you #TeamTangled or #TeamFrozen? Or Both? Sound off in the comments below or Tweet us @Rotoscopers!


Share on Pinterest
  • I’d been waiting to see if the Rotoscopers would ever tackle this debate! Great article, really like the way you broke it down into categories. Though I love Frozen, honestly I prefer Tangled. While Frozen blew me away the first time I saw it, upon rewatches, the various plot contrivances and muddled pacing of Frozen tend to bother me more and more. Yet about 3 years and many, many viewings later, Tangled is still one of my favourite Disney films. I think it benefitted from a much simpler story with a smaller cast of characters to develop.
    Great article, looking forward to seeing other opinions!

    • Adam Lenehan

      Totally agree with you. When watching Frozen I would skip some scenes and songs, just to keep the pace of the film going. I don’t have that with Tangled, it’s a tighter story, with no stops and starts. Also I would say the music in Tangled, not just the songs but the score is a lot better.

      • Anonymous

        The score in Tangled, maybe, but Frozen’s score isn’t bad.

        • Alisa

          Tangled. No matter what. During frozen after watching it for twenty minutes i pretty much knew what was gonna happen. The main characters in this movie ( or at least most of them) where rich and where the kind of people you’d expect to be well educated. We’ll, Kristoff was surprisingly smarter , no offense. Tangled just made a lot more sense than frozen.

          • Magenta White

            Define “smarter.” The only character who acted kind of outright foolish was Anna and she learned her lesson in a end. It’s not like she got away with anything. I would say that their actions and mistakes make them more human.

  • I’m featured in an article by Gary Wright…awesome!!!

  • I often cringed at comparisons like these, both are masterpiece in their own right, although this article is quite a fun read. Having said that I just personally prefer Frozen, because of the stronger emotional message it brings. Tangled did have plenty of hilarious scenes, but watching Elsa and Anna being together again just swept me off my feet 🙂

  • Anthony Raphael

    I feel that Tangled is just 1% BETTER than Frozen, while Let it go is an amazon song, i just feel that anytime I watch frozen, I often skip a lot of parts, I skip the beginning just to listen to First Time in Forever, then I watch 10 minutes, then I skip again to Let it Go, then to First time in forever reprised and watch the whole movie, with Tangled I tend to watch the whole movie for some reason, I feel like tangled has an equal amount of hilarity emotion, and even action to make a good Disney Movie. If I had to pick between the main song of the movie, Let it go is way better than I see the light, but there is something about the reprised version of Mother Knows Best which makes me fall in love with tangled even more than frozen

  • EllaCedar13

    Don’t make me choose! D:
    Also, will the Rotoscopers ever talk about the Tangled-Frozen crossover theory? (Which is sometimes extended to include The Little Mermaid and… Tarzan? -_-)

  • Guest

    I personally like

    • googlee

      Frozen? 🙂

  • Brittany

    Oh gosh it’s no contest, to me Tangled is classic timeless Disney perfection. Frozen is pretty & entertaining, but it’s FILLED with plot-holes and bad logic. It knew something was awkward when I first watched it, and the more I thought about it the more it became clear.
    *rant mode* The entire premise is so soft that it could have never happened if any of the characters other than Anna & Kristoff had any common sense. The parents could have listened to to the troll not to let Elsa fear her powers nor fear Anna knowing about them (Even when Anna found out, there was no consequence!) Obviously segregating Elsa from people would make an incompetent leader. Elsa was ignorant to abandon her kingdom & sister to ruin without even checking up on the consequences of her running away. Hans’s evil twin twist was totally contrived with zero foreshadowing (the worst part for me is when he falls in the water & looks at Anna lovingly when no one is looking, nobody evil would look that in-love when there’s nobody to act for) & really badly planned on his part (first he’s a really good actor, then he’s suddenly crappy at it?) The Weasleton characters were kind of wasted potential. It also really bugs me that the best love song in the movie is Love Is An Open Door, but since they made Hans evil now it’s the bad guy song? I even read an interview that the directors were having trouble not forcing the characters to do something out-of-character for the sake of the plot, it was clearly an issue to me. I like Anna & Kristoff, but I wish Kristoff’s Sami parents weren’t thrown out of the movie, especially when he starts the film. Seeing how he became an orphan would have been a perfect way to connect the otherwise pointless Sami tribal music at the beginning of the movie. Also the trolls, why would they try to trick an engaged girl into rushing into marriage with Kristoff instead, when Kristoff didn’t want to rush it? I have a joke with my friend that they cursed Hans into being evil so Kristoff would marry Anna and get the trolls into the royal family lol…but that’s just me being silly, not a big issue. Okay sorry about my essay of frozen issues. It is a very pretty, entertaining, funny movie. It just needed another year of plot revision to me.

    • Keyblademaster123

      It’s you’re opinion and that’s fine, but Frozen story and plot was very good and is slightly behind Tangled’s by only a margin. To be honest both Tangled and Frozen are timeless Disney classics. Also Elsa wasn’t being ignorant, but instead caring for her sister and kingdom by making sure she wouldn’t harm anybody. Plus she didn’t know she left a curse so we can’t call her ignorant for that.

      • James

        I kind of disagree, Elsa WAS ignorant to the fact that she placed a curse on Arendelle, but that can be forgiven since none of the characters (or the audience) really know the extent of her powers.

        Also, at what point did Elsa say she cared about her sister and the kingdom? When her powers were revealed at the coronation, she ran away because she was afraid of what everyone would do to her (a self-preservation motivation). Then in the famous “Let it Go” song, none of the lyrics indicate that she is isolating herself for the safety of others. She’s there so she doesn’t have to hide her powers, which is fine, but it once again shows her being “selfish”.

        By the way, LOVE your username! Frozen for KH3 in 2016! 😀

        • Ranting Swede

          At this point:
          ELSA (CONT’D)
          Goodbye, Anna.
          Elsa, wait–
          I’m just trying to protect you.

        • Name

          Elsa is so, so incredibly selfless. She runs from Arendelle out of love for her sister, Anna. Everything she does is for the happiness of others, it breaks my heart really that someone with such good intentions could be so broken inside. And yes, Elsa DOES have lines where she shows this.

          “Just stay away and you’ll be safe from me,”

          And this line, the way it’s delivered is perfect. It encompasses Elsa’s struggle in just a few words.

          “No Anna, I belong here, where I can be who I am, without hurting anybody.”

          It’s not just through her words, but Elsa’s actions are driven by love. When she created Marshmellow to take Anna and Kristoff away, she shrank back as if scared by her own creation. She knows she’s causing her sister harm by pushing her away, but in the end she feels it’s for the best. She believes they will be seperated forever, but her sister will be safe.

          During the climax, when Hans tells Elsa her sister is dead, she collapses out of grief. Her whole life- devoted to protecting those she loves- now gone. Her parents, now Anna. She had nothing to live for. In the next scene she is crying over the body of her dead sister.

          13 years confined in a room and every moment afterwards- all to potect her family. Is that not an unhuman amount of selflessness?

          • Jack t

            Oh my god, I’m reading this years later after posting it and now I’m crying. Elsa is still every bit as darling to me as when I first met her, and now I know she always will be. How can someone’s soul be so warm and loving? I always used to think that before and now it’s like I can see that in others as well, especially my mother and my family, and the many, many caring people in the world. So just thank-you so much to Frozen and especially Elsa for showing me what true, kind love is, and how beautiful it can be. And it’s really all around us 🙂

    • James

      Completely agree! In fact, I’m pretty sure you just copied all of my thoughts on Frozen and claimed them as your own lol

      • Keyblademaster123

        Elsa wasn’t ignorant because she cared for everybody. The point you’re missing in the film is that she doesn’t have to say it,(even though she said caring things a couple of times) it was expressed throughout the whole movie and it is shown through her emotions. Also take into account that when her powers were revealed she ran away so she can protect her people and her sister. A selfish act that she puts herself in exile to protect them. During Let it go she never knew about the curse and thought she can be herself and keep everyone safe from her at the same time.

        The ending were everyone accepts her quickly, yeah that was a little bit too quick, but I’m okay with it somewhat. Hours may have gone by or something like that so not to big of a concern.

        One more thing, thank you for liking my username. 🙂

        Frozen for KH3 as well. Hope E3 shows it off. 😉

        • Brittany

          I agree Elsa was thinking about protecting others. She was a victim of letting fear control her life when the troll said that was the number one rule. I used the word ignorant because I didn’t think her actions were very logical. It’s one thing to run away because you have ice powers, it’s another to run away as queen without even thinking to check on everyone. Especially when it’s filled with foreign authorities & she was clearly freezing stuff on the way out.
          She was able to control her powers when she learned to love herself…but still wanted to sit in her castle. I suppose a lifetime of fear would do that to you, with parents telling you that hiding is the best option. So Anna solved all her problems for her, and just by being her loving self.
          Gosh, if anything Disney sure made a movie that gets people talking. =_= But yes KH3 with Frozen could be *cool.*

          • AegysLTS

            I agree too, Elsa actually has had good control of her power as a kid, even when she accidentally struck Anna, it was because of bad aim. The trolls only warned her that fear will be her biggest enemy, and the sad thing is, she has to spend the rest of her life since fighting to suppress it and allowing fear to set in. Anyway I’m glad she eventually figure out how to control it again, or did she just ‘remember’ how she used to do it?

          • Keyblademaster123

            Her actions didn’t seem logical because she didn’t know to do. She was confused on what was right and fear was controlling her completely. This is thing people forget though the characters, elsa being the big one, act like actual human beings. They are portrayed more human because they were making mistakes, which makes it understandable and believe able. Elsa was never ignorant in the movie because she cared for everyone and at the same time made mistakes like anybody would in that situation.

            Yea this movie gets a lot of talking around now which is why this movie is great and an instant classic. It pretty much is equal to Tangled and the other greats. Also glad you agree on KH3 Frozen, that world will be one of the best if it happens. Squareenix show it off at E3 lol. 🙂

    • Ranting Swede

      You know, the magic in Tangled is pretty much explained until the deus ex machina ending where they break with all the established rules. Rapunzel’s hair can heal except when it loses its power (ie when its brown). That’s why Mother Gothel abducts her and why she dies when Rapunzel’s hair is completely brown. Yet, when Rapunzel cries, it heals Flynn…. God from the machine.

      Regarding the lack of an explanation for Elsa’ powers, it’s not necessary. It’s certainly nice to have, a cherry on the top, but it’s not necessary. I posit that there’s only one rule needed for the use of magic in high fantasy/soft science fiction narratives. There must be a limit to the power that prevents the user from short cutting to the end. Either it comes from limits to the power (Batman has no super powers) or inability to use it at will (Hulk’s power manifests itself without his control) or it comes from the morality of the user (Superman has ALMOST no limits but he believes that he should not be judge, jury and executioner. Same thing with Aang at the end of ATLA). Elsa is in category 2 until she learns how to deal with her power.

      As you can see, I’ve used many references to superhero media. Let me illustrate further why the “explanation” for powers is superfluous. Superman’s source of his powers change depending on the source. In comics, it’s because he gets it from the yellow sun and on Krypton, the red sun means he loses his power. In the Man of Steel film, it’s the air he breathes. In both pieces of media, it’s only important as a way to remove his source of power so that he can’t solve the problem immediately.

      And really what does explanation for a power mean anyway? Mutations don’t work in real life like they do in X-men. In real life, sunlight doesn’t fall to earth as a single drop and make flowers that give immortality. Dig a little deeper and it falls apart. It’s maybe the hook to hang your imagination on but beyond that, it’s not important. Make up whatever you want for Elsa.

      • CascadeWvera1

        Wow. That was a pretty well thought out response. Nice job (loved the Avatar: The Last Airbender reference!)

      • Brittany

        I feel like Rapunzel’s tears cured Flynn because her mother ate the magic flower while she was pregnant with Rapanzel, so Rapunzel herself contained the flower’s magic. Her hair was just where most of the magic manifested itself.
        I still feel like examples of superheroes do contain a reason for the powers happening, lab accidents, being aliens, genetics and whatnot, it doesn’t matter if they are realistic. But mostly coming off of Tangled I would have liked an explanation for Elsa since they seem to be in the same universe.
        Perhaps it’s not necessary, or a fault of the film (I know I may have been harsh in my rant), but for my own taste I find explanations more interesting. Even if it is a simple curse, it’d be nice to know who/what cursed her, like the old woman cursing the Beast.

        • CascadeWvera1

          It actually isn’t in the same universe. Wasn’t Rapunzel’s and Eugene’s shot in Arendelle just a cameo? But anyway, I agree that the origins of her powers wouldn’t mean anything.

        • Raygirl

          I agree. Not to mention if Elsa’s powers are the main issue in the story there should at least be some explanation as to how she came to have these powers and not anyone else in her family. And Kristoff should also have explanations for his past considering he’s the main male lead.

          • Magenta White

            There doesn’t need to be an explaination for Elsa’s powers. It doesn’t add anything to the story. Sure, it would be nice to know, but the plot wouldn’t really change.

          • Raygirl

            Even in Beauty in the Beast and Rapunzel we get an explanation for how both curses and powers were placed. It is important because it is the main issue of the story. It’d be different if the main story was about something other than that. Then it would have been irrelevant. But since this story was about Elsa’s powers, it was important to know how these powers came to be. In fact, they would have had a stronger story had they allowed Elsa to discover the secrets of her powers, rather than waste such an interesting character. All Elsa did was put on a sparkly dress and sing one song. After that, she was no use to the entire story. She should have been the main character, instead of Anna. I guess that’s what happens when companies try to change the original schematic. Walt Disney’s version would have been much better. But then years later they changed everything to appeal to the “wicked” broadway fans and it ended up being a complete mess.

          • Magenta White

            At the end of Beauty and the Beast, the Beast turns back into a human and comes to life again. However, he technically only should have turned back into a human, because he was cursed to be a beast forever unless he learned to love and be loved in return.

            In Tangled, there’s no hint as to how Mother Gothel knew to right words to make the magical flower work. When Eugene cut Rapunzel’s hair, Mother Gothel shouldn’t have died because the flower was still in Rapunzel’s tears. Also, Rapunzel can suddenly use her tears to stop death instead of disease and aging.

            Frozen’s story was not about Elsa’ powers. I mean, they were, but the origins didn’t matter as much as the magic in Beauty and the Beast and Tangled. the film itself didn’t spend a certain amount of time with the characters going on about what could have given Elsa her powers. All we really need to know is that they are connected to her emotions, which DOES matter to the film.

          • Raygirl

            We’re not even sure if the beast was dead or hurt. They never specified in the movie. And even if he was dead, whether he came back to life is not relevant to the story. The origin of his curse IS relevant to the story because it is the main issue of the story. And it was explained. Simple. In Tangled, the song she sings is not relevant to the story, especially because the flower was shown to have powers even without the song (Rapunzel’s mother is saved from just drinking the flower’s nectar). And again, this is not as relevant to the story as much as how Rapunzel (who is the main character) got the golden hair that led to her kidnapping and thus led her to be trapped in the tower by this women. And it is explained that the golden flower is at the origin of this powerful hair. Simple.

            With Elsa, we may not have needed to know why the Frozen heart is cured by love. But because it became an issue for the characters throughout the story, it was very important to explain where her powers originated from. It also would have made the story more interesting as well as expanding on Elsa’s character evolution. I suppose the days when productions would actually develop their characters are gone?

          • Magenta White

            But the origins of Elsa’s powers only pop up at the beginning of the film once when the King is asked by the trolls if Elsa was born with them or cursed. Also, considering that Anna the protagonist, the origins of Elsa’s powers wouldn’t matter to her.

          • Raygirl

            Yeah, but it mattered to many who were watching the film. Disney producers had an opportunity to expand on the origin of Elsa’s powers, and they did nothing. It was a waste of a good character when they did nothing to evolve her or tell the story of her powers. Maybe they were waiting for Frozen 2 to do that, like all the other movies these days…
            Elsa was the character that should have been on a journey discovering where her powers came from and why she was chosen to have such powers over everyone else. Instead, they focus their attention on Anna who hardly has a place in this new story except to be the sister of the girl with powers. Really? They changed everything else from the original schematic. Why didn’t they change the main character to Elsa instead of Anna? The movie would have been more engaging that way. Anna could have still been in the movie…but having her as the main character made the new plot seem sloppy. Anna was set up as the main character for the sake of the old schematic. But then Disney producers changed it to appeal to the “Wicked Broadway” generation who are obsessed with “Once Upon a Time” twists. But what they did wrong and what Wicked did right is that they made the iconic villain the MAIN CHARACTER. Even they know that an engaging story focuses on the character with the most depth and the character with the strongest ability to evolve and grow as a character. You might be satisfied with not knowing, but I was highly disappointed, especially there was so much more they could have done with this character than leave her in the castle with a sparkly dress throughout the ENTIRE MOVIE.

          • Magenta White

            But this is a “what if” situation. If Elsa WAS the protagonist, then MAYBE explaination of her powers would be beneficial to her character development. BUT, for the film we HAVE, Anna is the protagonist, and the origins to Elsa’s powers would add nothing.

            Initially, Elsa was supposed to be the villain and Anna would have kept her role in the film as it is. Since development changed halfway, I’m not surprised that Elsa was made the deutragonist (I’m okay with that).

          • Raygirl

            Actually they did. When people of Oz have relations with people of the human world, they create a deformed creature. That is how she came to be. See what happens when story gives an explanation.

            I’m very well aware of what movie we HAVE but that doesn’t make it a good one. lol And yes, Elsa would have carried this film well because she has the most potential for evolution. Anna did not. She had a standing for a side kick character rather than a main character. Its hard to evolve a character who has hardly any problems to work on of her own.
            And yes, I’m aware that Elsa was supposed to be the villain based off the Snow Queen story…however it would have been okay to make her good; if she were the main character. Like in Wicked. And wicked did a great job of capturing their most interesting character and showing her evolution from a girl wanting to be excepted to a girl who broke all the rules for the sake of good. That’s good storytelling.
            A good story writer doesn’t cast their most interesting character aside like that. They look to see how they can develop and evolve their characters, especially the ones that are important to the plot. That didn’t happen with Elsa. They should have spent more time with the movie instead of releasing so soon. When changing things up its like starting from scratch….and releasing the scratch is not a good plan.

            Even in this kind of story, the origin of Elsa’s powers were important to know because it was the main issue of the story.

          • Magenta White

            I say the movie is good with Anna as the protagonist or not or whatever. You don’t. Agree to disagree.

          • Raygirl

            I already agreed to disagree from the beginning. I just stated my opinion from the beginning to someone else until you commented to me and said I sounded “condescending”. I felt the need to explain that I’m simply not impressed by Frozen and find it to be an insult to Disney’s loyal fans that have followed their greatest works for the sake of good storytelling.

          • Magenta White


          • Raygirl

            At the end of the movie we see him pass out, but whether he is dead or not is unspecified. People assume he died because Belle cries and says “I love you”. The rose has a time limit of how long he would remain a beast and only this spell can be broken when he learns to love another before himself before the last petal falls. The spell is broken when he does this, and he starts his life as a human over again, right where he left off as a human prince, same age and everything; before he turned into a human Prince in the first time. By this time in the movie, it is the end. And it is unimportant why the flower healed him or bought him back to life. What is important to developing the story and the character’s evolution is why he got the curse and where he got the curse, as the curse is the main issue of the entire story….and that was answered. Him being brought back to life is not an issue to the main character, therefore one can only assume that the magic of the flower was so powerful, that his transformation gave him a new life like a phoenix out of the ashes.

            And Mother Gothel may not be dead…all we know is she fell out of the tower. lol Aside from that, Rapunzel was BORN with the flower’s power because her mother drank the magical flowers nectar. Rapunzel is basically the flower herself, which can also explain why her hair grew like a plant (which is also in reference to the original story where her hair was described as growing like weeds). But the flowers power again did not need the song as it has shown to work even without the song in the movie when Rapunzel’s mother drank it. The song was simply for the sake of the movie, but not for the sake of the powers control. And as the producers have said inspiration is from the fact that singing to flowers (like with most flowers; as a plant collector, I should know) allows flowers to grow, yet with this particular magical flower singing to it helps it grow magically. More than likely the flower didn’t need a specific chant, rather any old song would do to help it grow. Now if you want to ask why singing to flowers helps them grow, that’s a question you could only ask a God if you believe there is one. lol

            Elsa’s powers was the main issue throughout the entire story. It was central to why Elsa ran away, why she had to distance herself from Anna, and why the storm was caused in the first place. It is the core of the entire movie which is named “Frozen”. If she had known the origin of her powers (why she particularly was chosen) this could have helped her learn the lesson of love and fear in more depth. Perhaps intense love gave birth to her powers? Who knows. The fact that the movie didn’t spend time on this aspect of Elsa IS the problem, not the answer. This is why it would have been better to have Elsa as the main character showing her evolutionary process from fearful sorceress, to loving creator. Again, that didn’t happen.

      • Jeff

        I would’ve liked an explanation for Elsa’s powers too, but I also agree that it’s not necessary since it would’ve added nothing to the film. Say that the film shows some evil ice spirit curses Elsa because… I don’t know, her parents were treasure hunters when they were younger and stole something from the ice spirit. Would that have helped the film?

        A lack of explanation for Elsa’s powers may have yielded an unexpected positive, though. If the origins of her powers were brought up, then removing them might have a possibility, but the film doesn’t bring up removal as an option at all. That means Elsa has powers, and there’s nothing she can do about it. Regardless of how or why she has powers, if she wants to live with them comfortably, she has to accept herself for it.

        The explanation for the magic hair made sense in Tangled since that’s the reason Rapunzel was kidnapped and locked in a tower, but I’m also not big on the deus ex machine near the end. I’ve read some comments that the tear is supposed to be the original drop of sunlight, but that’s a very thin explanation. And there’s almost no support for it, even if that’s supposed to be left to the viewer’s interpretation. What similarities would Rapunzel’s tear and the drop have other than being liquid drops? Would Rapunzel have been able to heal Flynn if she sang the song and dropped a spit, or maybe some blood? Even then, how the sun works in the universe of Tangled would need explaining. How often does the sun leak? What exactly is the sun in their universe? I’m not sure if it’s also a giant ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion, and something like that would never make “liquid drops” in this reality.
        As someone already stated, it’s possible that Rapunzel did have a bit of magic inside, but it’s mostly in her hair, but that still doesn’t convince me. Maybe if there were more signs of a possibility of having magic instead of just in the hair…

      • Dusty Ayres

        The power mentioned and shown in Tangled wasn’t only in the hair, but was always in Rapunzel, and at a deeper level, which is why the tear she cried heals Flynn (which hearkens back to the original story in which her tears restore the sight of the male character.) As for Superman in The Man of Steel, he still has to deal with lack of sunlight leaving him powerless as well as having to adjust to Earth’s gravity and atmosphere as a child; it was never got rid of or made different in the movie as I saw it.

        • Ranting Swede

          Could you enlighten me how you know Rapunzel’s power to heal is present in her tears? What is the evidence from which you draw this conclusion? If you could point out a specific scene or line, it would be really helpful to me. As far as I can recall, the only explicit rules I saw in Tangled are singing + gold hair = healing and lighting, brown hair = nothing, other body parts=not shown. If I missed a point where she cried, didn’t sing and was still capable of healing something prior to the ending, I really want to know.

          I mostly don’t care about the rules for Rapunzel’s powers but it’s worth reminding people who argue that Frozen is inferior because it doesn’t explain Elsa’s powers, that this “deficiency” is also present in Tangled and present at a crucial part of the story.

  • Army

    I personally like Frozen much more than Tangled. Frozen was way more epic and emotional than Tangled. Tangled was just too light and fluffy of a Disney movie. The song “When Will My Life Begin” is just about house chores.

    • xD

    • CascadeWvera1

      “When Will My Life Begin” was pretty much supposed to be like that. It introduced what Rapunzel did in her tower. Admittedly, those skills are kind of useless to the actual story, but, they do a great job to get to know Rapunzel anyway.

    • Brittany

      When Will My Life Begin was about the same thing as Anna being cooped up in the castle finding random things to do, they both wanted to get out and live.

  • CascadeWvera1

    I’d pretty much rank Tangled and Frozen on the same page in terms of quality, but I might prefer Frozen because I don’t feel like Tangled took many risks or tried something new.

    The ‘I See the Light’ sequence was beautiful, but it was a bit too similar to ‘Kiss the Girl’ and ‘A Whole New World’ to me. Eugene’s death also reminded me too much of the climax from Beauty and the Beast.

    Admittedly, Frozen’s story is more uneven than Tangled’s, but I almost felt like Tangled took some of the most perfectly done scenes from other Disney films and used it there. It’s not a bad thing (believe me, I still really REALLY like Tangled), but too familiar.

    • “It’s strange, but I found Rapunzel’s personality changing frequently. ”

      Yes! It’s interesting that both Tangled and Frozen have main characters who have spent most of their lives in some form of isolation. The question is, what would that kind of person be like? How would it affect them? They never really explored that issue with Rapunzel, even though there were plenty of opportunities — the most they did was that sequence immediately after she leaves the tower, where she keeps alternating between horror and happiness over leaving, but it’s never really addressed again. Frozen, on the other hand, asked those questions about Anna and Elsa, and it affects them both in very distinctive ways and are very important for their development throughout the film.

      I don’t hold it against them too much, I guess, as Tangled’s main goal was most likely to prove that it was possible to create a new princess/fairytale/musical in CG for a new generation and have it be a success. They did all that wonderfully and it is a great film, but… well, I guess I just wonder what it might have been like if they had taken a few more risks…

  • Fadi Antwan

    Tangled all the way. They don’t even compare. And actually Frozen is the one that tried overly to be “modern,” which partially ruined it, even though I liked it. Tangled didn’t have that annoying vibe.

    • CascadeWvera1

      Eh. For me Tangled bothered me with too many ‘Dreamworks Style’ comedy like bringing in a guitar and Flynn’s ‘smolder’ in the middle of a Disney movie. But hey, to each their own. I think it all comes down to personal taste.

    • Keyblademaster123

      Actually Frozen was on the lines of being more old school than modern. Plus Frozen didn’t have anything annoying at all. Also doing a comparison is stupid all the good, great or amazing Disney films are equal honestly.

      • Fadi Antwan

        I’m just sad we can’t have that amazing dialogue of the Renaissance Disney movies back. I don’t want the dialogue in the new fairy tale Disney movies to be aligned with real life. I mean, what’s so special and charming about that? It’s getting gradually worse from what we’re seeing so far.

      • Doing a comparison helps us to see where things succeeded and failed so that going forward we can do better, taking the best of all things that came before us. No film is equal to another, unless it is a carbon copy.

        • Keybladaster123

          Well that’s you’re opinion on whether there not equal in quality. Like I said in you’re long comment (which I respect and appreciate still), that it’s subjective. Comparing films like Tangled and Frozen is one thing since they are both on equal ground with there own strengths and weaknesses. Both these films a strength that is marginally better than the other and vice versa.

          In the entirety of the Disney animated movies though, they are all equal because they are good, great or amazing. They are unique from the other movies and standed or will stand the test of time and claim as one of Disneys best. The only ones that don’t fit that quota are the ones Disney never mentions or didn’t do well with the people( mediocre-bad films). The other ones that aren’t part of the quota as well is the golden age of Disney. That remains untouched and should be as such. 🙂

  • AnimationGuy

    tangled because i felt that frozen

    had too many songs and only 2 were good.

  • enidrej

    Hands down, its Frozen. Being an introvert and an older sister makes me relate to Frozen, but mostly what I love and forever will be is that ice-castle making scene. Also I love the camera work, how they rotate the camera and follow the subjects, which what I found amusing to Christopher Nolan’s Inception and Dark Knight.

  • While I ma not the biggest fan of either, Tangled is the better movie in my opinion. While Frozen does have better songs, Tangled’s story is a lot more tight, engaging, and logical. Frozen has quite a few plotholes, and I felt the character development, and the development of character relationships were a bit rushed. I do not see how Anna would remember how close her or Elsa was when she was 4 years old AT THE MAX.

    I do feel like Rapunzel is Mary-Sue-ish though. I enjoy both, but Tangled makes more sense, and more enjoyable. I think Frozen is worse than The Princess and the Frog.

    • Keybladaster123

      Nah Frozen is equal to Tangled and PaTF, it comes down to you’re personal taste really. Both of these movies are pretty much instant classics that are equal to the other classics. Doing comparisons in general is stupid when all the Disney movies, the ones that are good, great or amazing anyways, are equal to each other. It all comes to what you prefer watching more.

      • CascadeWvera1

        Well said. I’m so annoyed when people state their opinions as facts when they really mean little to none. It all comes down to personal taste in the end.

        • I never said my opinion are facts btw 🙂

          • I don’t think anyone said opinions were facts, in fact. 🙂

        • Sabrina

          I can’t believe you’re saying it to the most selfish person on internet. HE’s the one who literally says to EVERYONE that his opinions are fact, and the opinion of others are JUST opinions. I came from another conversation were this person won’t let me have my own opinon. Do you think that this person know what is personal taste? I’m happy cause you do. Because he don’t.

      • I think all three are good movies, and all helped WDAS’s increasing quality within the recent years. At the end of the day, it is all about how these films make an individual feel.

        • CascadeWvera1

          Sorry, buddy.

          • No need to apologize.

          • “no no no…it’s okay….you don’t have to apologize…”


    • CascadeWvera1

      I don’t see how an 18-year-old Rapunzel could have a vision of her parents AS A BABY, either.

      There’s a bit of illogical things in Tangled too.

      -Rapunzel opens up to the thugs and people in the kingdom much so easily despite being locked in a tower her whole life and told that people are bad by Mother Gothel.

      -Maximus convinces the thugs to help Flynn Rider, a despite being a horse and the thugs not really liking Flynn either.

      -Somehow, Rapunzel realized that she was the ‘Lost Princess’ by inadvertly painting Corona suns in her tower (what?)

      -A thug becomes the best pianist in the world at the end without even showing how he got that far (and how impossible it is).

      -Maximus becomes captain of the guards (once again, while talking like a horse)

      • James

        All of your points are completely true, but…. they really don’t matter because it’s a Disney movie.

        I know normally if a movie has plot-holes, then it deserves to be ripped a new one, but I feel animated Disney films are allowed to get away with it. Many of their films, not just Tangled and Frozen, are riddled with many plot-holes, even the beloved ones (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, etc.).

        Disney movies aren’t necessarily entertainment for your brain, but for your heart. We just need our characters to go from their lowest low to having their dreams come true, the nitty gritty details aren’t vital. The real world runs on enough logic anyway, it’s okay to throw it out the door every once and a while.

        • CascadeWvera1

          I realize that. But they’re some things that irritated me about Tangled. Don’t get me wrong, I still like Tangled, and you’re right. Disney movies aren’t meant for your brain. Even I know that the classics have logic/plot problems. I just wanted to make a statement that every film has some plot holes.

  • Oh this isn’t a poll. There isn’t any conversation to be HAD here. Tangled is leagues better in every conceivable way minus music. One could also argue Frozen has the leg up in effects, but that’s because effects in Frozen was practically it’s own CHARACTER they spent so much time and effort on them. In fact, I’d say the effect animation in Frozen outdid the character animation, and when that happens some serious red-flags should be popping up, honestly. Then we’re in Avatar style “film making” which is not a good place to be.

    I liked Tangled much more personally, but I can take myself out of the equation just as well and objectively from a film making standpoint Tangled is vastly superior to Frozen. Frozen has a bigger audience, but don’t let that lead you to think it’s a better film. The masses can, and are, often swayed by other things. On a story, character, and cinematic level, Frozen can’t possibly compete with Tangled. It is a film that will be loved by many for nostalgic reasons one day, but Tangled has the potential to truly be a classic like Disney films of yesteryear.

    Of course, all are entitled to like one or the other more from a personal opinion standpoint. I adore Great Mouse Detective, but I’m sure not going to make insane claims that the film is better than many other animated movies, because it simply isn’t. Doesn’t mean I can’t love it dearly.

    • Keyblademaster123

      Well that’s you’re opinion thinking tangled is superior, but honestly doesn’t make it right. Film is subjective and shouldn’t be saying that Frozen can’t compete with Tangled. It’s you’re opinion and that’s fine until taken too far and say that’s it’s fact that Frozen is not a better film.

      • enidrej

        Agreed. Sometimes, if technical people put some non-layman terms in their opinions, it sounded like a fact to common people.

        • Keyblademaster123

          Exactly! This is why nobody should be comparing or stating their personal opinions as facts (if they go that far). It makes it unfair on a movie, in this case Frozen, and makes people go against what is a great movie that pretty much at this point is a instant classic. People said the same things about Tangled and PaTF, and look were they are now. All the good, great, and Disney movies are equal to each other because they are unique and that stand or will be classics.

          • There is no “unfairness” in objectivity, that’s the point of being objective. My judgement of Frozen is based on structure of story, character, and film-making, not of any subjective “fair or unfair” aspects.

            I will post more about this a bit later, and I hope my detailed explanation is helpful to understanding the perspective I’m coming from. 🙂

          • Ranting Swede

            Not really. You can say objectively that Frozen has more flaws than Tangled. But the decision to consider Frozen “worse” than Tangled is a subjective choice to use that criteria as important. Roger Ebert used to say “It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.” Obviously, that’s really nebulous and hand wavy but I think it aptly describes why a checkbox ticking, numbers counting analysis of films is sort of missing the point of how films can transcend the formulas you try to apply to them.

            Anyway, here’s one thing I hate about Tangled. It’s building to a character arc of Rapunzel gaining her independence from Mother Gothel. That gets thrown out of the window so Rapunzel can save Eugene. “Objectively” that arc is completely and utterly scuttled.

          • “checkbox ticking, numbers counting analysis of films is sort of missing the point of how films can transcend the formulas you try to apply to them”

            I agree! Reminds me of the Steve Jobs’ quote that sometimes ‘people just don’t get it’ regarding gadgets…it’s not about products with the highest RAM or CPU speed, it’s about how all these packages come together to give user the greatest emotional experience. It’s a weird analogy but he do have a point!

          • The thing is, in film we engineer the “Greatest emotional experience.” It’s a system of choosing the right lighting, composition, music, etc. etc. etc. to set the tone for how you want the audience to react. A “checkbox” if you will of things to keep in mind while you are crafting any given film. The decisions are not arbitrary, but known and technical.

            It is a surprise to me that more people do not know this, I guess. Movies are literally built from the ground up to take you on a very specific journey because the creators know how the human mind works.

          • “You can say objectively that Frozen has more flaws than Tangled. But the
            decision to consider Frozen “worse” than Tangled is a subjective choice
            to use that criteria as important.”

            In my eyes, if something has more flaws it is objectively (ie. technically) inferior to the thing that has less flaws. Which I think aligns with the definition of objective, too.

            Again, if we want to discuss “Which film do you like better?” then we’re having a different conversation here. Since the title is “Which film IS better” (and does not indicate opinion) we are speaking as objectively as we can be.

          • Ranting Swede

            Where does originality and challenging the status quo fit in your list of well established, well defined, well optimized criteria? I think A Bug’s Life has far fewer flaws than Wall-E. Wall-E falls off the deep end in its second half, after all. By your criteria A Bug’s Life must be “better” But A Bug’s Life is also rote, competent and forgettable whereas Wall-E is memorable for trying something new.

      • There is a difference between subjective observation and objective analysis. There are rules and guidelines to storytelling that set the best films/stories apart from others. This is a tangible thing, not just “Oh, I like this so it’s this way.” We can dive deeply into this world of plot and character, and a wealth of books and articles have been written about such things. If you’d like a great place to start, I recommend “Story” by Robert McKee. It’s unbelievably comprehensive.

        I understand the desire to want a personal favorite to win some contest of subjectivity. Trust me, I do. When people speak badly about The Great Mouse Detective, it pains me. But I can also separate that internal feeling and look at it from the larger perspective where they are generally right: Great Mouse Detective had many, many issues, a majority of which stemmed from a lack of budget and insane time constraints. That does not mean I like the film less, or it’s inferior from the standpoint of my personal feeling.

        We have a choice when going into debates like these. We can do so from EITHER the objective or subjective standpoint. When we discuss which is “better” and not which is “preferred personally” we need to take into account all the pieces that make UP the film, leaving out as much of ourselves as possible. Obviously as humans leaving out all ourselves is near impossible, but we can still strive for that purpose.

        I am not basing my analysis on personal feelings here. I am basing them on a history of film and a lifetime of study. The form of story and character is well documented, you don’t have to take my word for it. Most don’t bother to analyze the depth that history has shown us, and that’s fine. Truthfully NOT studying these things will likely allow you to ENJOY the films more, because once you begin down the path of objectivity, much of the joy is sucked away and you lose an innocence that is very hard to get back.

        If you’d like more information on the downfalls of Frozen and concrete, objective reasons it is the inferior film, I highly recommend the analysis of Ed Hooks, who has been doing this analyzing FAR longer than I have: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/disneys-frozen-the-acting-and-performance-analysis-97605.html

        Again, just because we can objectively decide which film is literally better from a historical and structured standpoint does NOT mean you are wrong for liking one or the other more. Opinion is brilliant in that way, and can be decided for oneself with no fear of anyone telling you you’re wrong. Many people say Cars is a bad film, and in many ways it is, however I really and truly enjoy watching it on a personal level. And in that sense it’s quality is rather meaningless, because entertainment is the goal of any good film.

        I will leave it at that, and if you want to continue to believe my analysis is just subjective, that’s entirely your call. All the best!

        • I was with you (well, following your reasoning) until you mentioned that Ed Hooks article, which I consider a very good example of how NOT no analyse a film, or indeed, anything at all. He begins by saying, “My standard of measurement is the emotional impact a movie has on its audience and its elegance as a work of art,” and says he will take the overall structure into account. He subsequently chooses a “scene-by-scene” structure for his article, focusing almost entirely on the things he thought DIDN’T work, a major red flag for bias (see: barely a paragraph for Let it Go, which is the only part he praises) and not only that, but completely ignores context in certain scenes or deliberately (based on the comments) ignores the intent of the film for certain plot points (for instance, why Anna thawed). The worst of it is the implication that his standards for evaluating the film are universal. They’re not. The whole thing poorly reasoned and read like little more than an advert for his own work.

          I do agree, however, that it IS generally possible to take a step back and analyse something, and come to the conclusion that one is of better quality than another. Where I disagree with you — and obviously Ed Hooks — is the idea of “rules and guidelines”, which is precisely the wrong path to take, though you are right about taking your personal feeling out of it. The first questions for good analysis are “what is this trying to do” and “how well does it do it.” That’s it, and frankly, it is a wonderful and enjoyable way of approaching any work of art, as it focusses analysis on “inquiry,” rather than “judgement,” and takes out all the frustration that comes with, “but they’re not following the rules!” It also respects a story and its creators enough to judge the work on its own terms and its ambitions, rather than, say, Ed Hooks teaching methods and theories on what makes a good performance. Much better this way, and leads to far more interesting — and more nuanced — discussions.

        • Keyblademaster123

          That’s the problem though many people think film has objectivity in it when it comes to superior vs inferior. I tell them, respectively mind you :), that that’s there opinion on saying its objective making it entirely subjective. It’s not that I believe you’re analysis is subjective, but instead it already was to begin with. It’s you’re opinion to think that film has a objective manner when it comes to saying what’s better than the other.

          I appreciate the time and effort you went through to write that all down. Honestly though, that’s why argueing about whether film is objective or subjective matter is just pointless. Everybody is unique in their own way and should take it into account. Film is subjective no matter how much analysis you put on a film. You as a person think “objectively” that Frozen is inferior to Tangled, when, this poll is right in the regards of “there’s no winner”.

          Once again I respect and appreciate what you’re saying but that’s just how film as a art works in so many ways.

    • CascadeWvera1

      Forget the audience. Frozen also had higher ratings or even equivilant ratings to Tangled. What are you saying? That Frozen won’t be remembered in a few years like Tangled? Come on. I’m with Keyblademaster123.

      • I don’t think it has anything to do with memory, so much as it will be easier to be objective a few years down the road. The same people who gushed over Titanic, for example, found themselves scratching their head at that adoration a decade later. Because, in time, the less-subjective nature of films show themselves in full force, and it is only nostalgia that can blind you to the truth of it all. I myself loved Lois and Clark, a TV show about Superman from the 90s. Recently watching it on DVD I was very surprised that objectively the show is absolutely terrible. Time shows true colors, hence why true classics like Snow White and Pinocchio still stand tall in the history of great film.

        • CascadeWvera1

          So, I’m a little confused. You’re saying that one day Frozen will be looked at differently than it is now?

          • You’re totally right, we WILL have to wait and see. Predictions, even if based on clear evidence, are always just guesses. I firmly believe that Frozen will eventually lose the sparkle that has swept up this massive audience, much in the same way that Avatar is not in the level of esteem it once was. As you said, though, we’ll have to wait.

            It’s hard for me to imagine it maintaining this level of adoration, though. If it does, it will be a very unusual case that goes against the norm of history in films. Still, there’s always an exception to the rule so we’ll find out!

          • CascadeWvera1

            So if Frozen wasn’t this popular and maybe on the same level as Tangled, do you think that it would be remembered then?

          • enidrej

            I’m not completely sure about this cause I didn’t perform survey from kids or teenagers to get hard data, but I watched and read some people saying that Frozen is this generation’s Lion King. Though I really love Lion King when I was a kid (even though I haven’t re-watch it for more than 10 years now, I still vividly remember all the scenes), it’s still hold a special place in my heart albeit the criticisms it got. So, saying that people will not maintain a level of adoration to this movie like what happen in James Cameron’s Avatar few years later, for me though I disagree to that.

          • Avatar is a bad example, since its main attraction was the technology, and that had an expiry date, as it was bound to become obsolete. Even during the time of its release, if I remember correctly, the general view was “beautiful to look at, poor story.” Frozen’s journey in terms of how it is remembered will likely be different, but Disney films have a habit of sticking around, particularly as their animated features don’t fade away like most blockbusters, but sell consistently well years after release. Plus, the fact that it has appealed to a generation of very young children has an almost guaranteed nostalgia factor sometime down the line, the same way my generation still thinks fondly of all the 90s films, even if some are better or generally more popular than others. The obsession is going to fade eventually, but I reckon it’s going to leave some measure of affection in its place, even if it isn’t “adoration.”

          • Keyblademaster123

            Yea I agree with you there. I mean people said the same thing about the Lion King and look were it is now. Frozen will get that same thing that Lion King did 20 years ago. Heck I grew up with the Disney Reinassance and I kept telling people that Lion King will be remembered. Only difference was the internet wasn’t as big or existent like it is today. Nowadays we have those people who like to say terrible things about a popular Disney film when it goes no were except making the film more popular and better.

          • Keyblademaster123

            Also the general view was definitely, beautiful to look at, but a lot of people say the story is good but not great, songs are outstanding, and the characters are great. That’s what I hear more often now anyways. 🙂

          • CascadeWvera1

            You read my mind! What really pulled Avatar through was its technology. It’s an amazing film to look at, and not a bad one at that, but probably isn’t one that will be carried out through generations.

          • Keyblademaster123

            Yea Frozens obsession will die down, but it definite will still be remembered and last for generations. It’s pretty much a classic like Tangled, WIR and the other greats.

          • I agree about the Avatar hype, nothing more than a visual feast, the story and twist is so predictable I was wondering if the scriptwriter took his cue from Lion King 2…..bad boy ‘infiltrates’ other side with a motive, meets girl, sees a new world, falls in love, joins other side, war, happy ending …=P

          • Keyblademaster123

            Frozen will maintain that charm over time. Once again Film is subjective no matter how many people say it has a objective analysis to it. The reason Frozen works and will stand the test of time because it’s just as good as Tangled. Sure the story is behind Tangled by a margin, but that’s very small. People said the same things about the Lion King when I was a kid during the 90s. Yet look we’re it is now.

      • No one said that Frozen will not be remembered. It is clear that the opposite will happen with Frozen.

        • Keyblademaster123

          What do you by opposite? That people will remember it but like it less. Cause that’s more than likely not the case. Frozen will be remembered and be loved more.

  • David Kang

    This is the best comparison we can have. For me, TANGLED narrowly beats FROZEN.

  • They’re both awesome, though I have to give Frozen the edge. Comparing the two are fairly interesting, because I think, fundamentally, their strengths and weaknesses are more or less opposite of each other — Tangled’s plot and pacing is better thought out, but thematically, Frozen is the more sophisticated story of the two. think Tangled the best film when it comes to just relaxing and allowing it to carry you along on a fun journey, but there isn’t all that much going on under the surface, whereas Frozen is packed with subtext, has a very strong character development and a hint of darkness that Tangled largely avoids — it’s the sort of film that demands that you connect with and think about.

    The reason I have to give Frozen the edge is because, despite its flaws, I think its very solid thematic structure is ultimately what makes it so great and why so many people have connected with it. Plotting issues are forgiveable, so long as the story/characters ring true, and as much as love Tangled, I can never quite get over the feeling that there is just something missing, or like it played it just a little too safe.

    • CascadeWvera1

      You read my mind all the way!

    • Brittany

      I respect your preference but I think Tangled has complexity too. Tangled also deals with fear & trust, only with one character rather than two. I think Frozen goes more into fearing too much, while Rapunzel puts all her trust in people. She even can’t stand the thought of betraying her “mother’s” trust. Rapunzel is completely crushed when she’s tricked into thinking Flynn betrayed her. But it wasn’t because Flynn was black and white bad guy like Hans, she knew Flynn had the thief side to him and took the risk to trust him. Mother Gothel used that prove her point not to trust other people. I thought it was pretty daring to have the villain take advantage of the mother role, she could use all of the “but I provided for you your entire life” arguments. Rapunzel had to stand up to her own past once she realized she was kidnapped and raised to be loyal to the wrong mother. I thought that was a pretty twisted identity crisis for disney to attempt. Mother Gothel was a pretty sad person, she really believed the world was a cruel cold place, but you get what you put out there..she couldn’t love herself unless she was eternally young. (Man, I talk too much.)

      • CascadeWvera1

        That’s true. Tangled does go into trust a lot, but I feel like it doesn’t make much sense for a girl to be trapped in her tower her whole life and open up to people so easily. She didn’t have that much trouble or conflict with doing this which I find to be very inrealistic considering that another Gothel was the only person in her life for 18 years. We didn’t see Rapunzel have trouble getting used to people that much. But I respect your preference too.

      • Part of the issue I have with Tangled is that there was a lot of potential complexity, but never really developed very far, and consequently, character development ended up hurting. You mentioned trust, and sure, it’s there, though I’m not sure I see it to the same extent you do — she doesn’t actually trust Flynn until the end when she hands him the crown and she has no choice except to trust Gothel, since her entire existence depends on her.

        The main issue I have with Tangled (actually, it isn’t much of an issue as an observation, as I understand why they did it), is that it deliberately kept the story light, and never addressed some of the darker or complex themes that were lurking just under the surface. Rapunzel’s life is characterised by isolation and complete dependence on Gothel, but she adjusts to the outside world with remarkable ease. The story doesn’t build up in a way that Rapunzel makes the decision, of her own accord, to reject Gothel’s authority and view of the world, though it plays with Rapunzel’s growing independence when she meets Gothel again. That crucial piece of character development is kept for the very end of the story, by way of the “I’ve been making the royal suns! And I remember seeing my parents when I was a newborn baby!”

        As I’ve said before, I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing — I think the creators made a conscious decision to make sure their two leads were “likeable and easy to relate to” and were in the process of figuring out the best way to reboot the genre in CG for a new generation, and as a result, they kept the story fairly simple — the plot hangs together very well, the pacing is great, the film fun and entertaining, but I think, thematically at least, their choices were kept pretty safe.

        • Raygirl

          Honestly, Frozen did not have that great of character devlelopment. In fact, most of the characters in Frozen failed to evolve and learn. Don’t get me wrong they had interesting personalities in the start, but they did not evolve or add anything to the movie. Elsa could have but her purpose in the movie ended after she left for the mountain. The rest of the movie ended up focusing on a dead romance between Kristoff and Anna.

          Why do people assume that darker themes in a movie means better story. From my understanding, a good story is well though out with a specific contsructed goal. Frozen had potential to be a darker story, but ended up being a movie with hardly any story; just dark elements. Disney sells this easily; instead of making a well thought out story, they would rather throw some dark themes in there because the “idea” of something dark there sells easily. This is kind of what I miss about Disney’s Renaissance: the stories managed to be deep, but Disney always focused on the most important aspect of the movie: its STORY. If the story is not engaging it loses interest. What saved Frozen was its epic musical numbers. But just think for a minute: take all the music out of this movie Frozen. In fact, next time you watch the movie, skip the musical numbers. What kind of movie would this be exactly?

          • Magenta White

            That’s a little condescending to people who enjoyed the film. Frozen has about nine songs, but I assure you that they were not the only things that peaked my interest. I happened to like the characters, themes, and story. Remove one of those things, the film becomes weaker.

            Pocahontas was a film with beautiful animation animation many people enjoyed the music (it even won a Oscar for it). But was it super successful? No at all. It received mixed to negative reviews and is to this day considered one of the weakest Disney films.

          • Raygirl

            Financial success does not define a good movie. There are many movies that have hit box office sells, but were terrible. Frozen’s nine songs I’m sure are the only thing that kept your interest. Because if you remove those songs, it would be even more obvious that the movie had no story what-so-ever. The movie wanted to be too many things at once. disney sold on the idea that is was “supposed” to be a sister story, yet the entire is spent focusing on Kristoff and Anna’s romance. While Elsa was an interesting character, the developers did absolutely nothing to evolve her character. The only thing saving this movie is its “catchy” musical numbers, which honestly not all of them were even relevant to the story they were “trying” to tell. There’s not much development a movie can do when nine musical numbers take up half the movie. Pocahontas had only five songs in its movie, which gave plenty of room for character and story development. Even without the musical score, Pocahontas had a well developed story, as most of the movies in during Disney’s 90s Renaissance. The musical scores back then were simply icing on the cake of already well developed stories. With frozen, all it had was music to help it stand. But if you take the music out of the movie, it is a sad piece of development. Tangled had more direction and better animation to boot. The only think missing from Tangled was its “catchy” musical numbers. I find that to be the issue with most modern Disney movies: they always seem to supplement one aspect of creativity for another. In the end, their modern movies always seem to be missing something. I hope that Giants and Moana prove to be better improvements. It used to be a time that movie productions focused creating the best stories and made the musical scores to surround the story. I’m not sure if you know this, but Frozen’s musical score was written BEFORE they even made the rewritten version of the story (they changed Walt Disney’s idea of The Snow Queen into Frozen, the cheaper looking title). What does that tell you? That they cared more about “catchy” tunes than actual story writing. Overall, movies today are constantly trying to compete with Dreamworks comedy, as well as push outside social agendas, but don’t care enough to develop their story and characters.
            In Frozen, most of the characters felt useless to the story altogether, especially Olaf and Kristoff. Kristoff, who was supposed to be the main male protagonist, is nothing more than a chauffeur. The developers did nothing to make him feel important or like-able. And while Olaf is like-able, he is useless as a sidekick. At least in the other Disney movies they were useful to the main protagonist. Olaf was simply there. This is an example as to how movie productions no longer care about putting effort into their movies, and have focused selling the product and getting the number of sells to meet how much money they put out for production and advertisements. The movies is definitely not what it used to be.

          • Magenta White

            I already know that financial success doesn’t define a good movie. My point was that Pocahontas had great animation and music, but people weren’t blinded by either of those to see that the film overall had a weak story and characters (according to most of the critical reviews and my opinion. If the story is developed to you, that’s fine).

            I don’t think that Rapunzel is that great of a character. Sure she was independent, but for a girl in isolation her whole life with only Mother Gothel as human company, that doesn’t make any sense. Mother Gothel mentally abused Rapunzel into believing that people are EVIL and to stay away from them. However, 18 years of no interaction of being able to see how the outside world really works becomes dropped within a few hours when Rapunzel meets the thugs and the people in the kingdom, and approaches them, unharmed at all. It’s also too much for me to buy that Rapunzel is better at getting away from the guards than Flynn Rider and is more “savvy” than him.

            Who are you to decide what I liked about Frozen? I liked the songs, story, most of the characters, and the themes. I did not only like the songs, so don’t tell ME how I like the film. Besides, for a DISNEY ANIMATED MUSICAL it helps to have some memorable songs and I think that a good number of them move the plot along (except “In Summer” and “Fixer Upper”).

            They could have done more with Kristoff, I agree, but Anna didn’t know a thing about traveling in the mountains, so I don’t blame her for having a “chauffeur.”Olaf is not pointless in my opinion. He is meant to represent the close bond that Anna and Elsa once had. “Building a snowman” (hence the song) was something that Anna and Elsa did together. He says Anna’s line, “The sky’s awake…” and Elsa was the one to make his catchphrase, “Hi, I’m Olaf and I like warm hugs!” In addition, Olaf is the first thing Elsa creates during “Let It Go,” and represents that happiness and whimsy she felt. The large snow monster, Marshmallow, represented her fear and uncontrollability.

            Olaf also isn’t pointless plot-wise. He’s the one to help Anna, Kristoff, and Sven to Elsa’s ice palace and he reminds Elsa that there is beauty her powers (when he sees her in the ice palace again and Elsa looks at her hands in awe). Olaf is also the one who helps Anna when she is freezing to death, tells her what love really is, and points out what saved Anna when she sacrificed herself for Elsa. Besides, with your sense I could remove many other sidekick characters from other Disney films like Pascal from Tangled.

          • Raygirl

            Weak story? Pocahontas? Are we talking about the same movie? Pocahontas has one of the most engaging stories, while Frozen does not have a story plot hardly. (And this is because Disney animators changed the schematic to “Frozen” last minute). Pocahontas’ world changes when English people come into her land and she meets John Smith, where they learn about each other’s worlds and eventually fall in love. Unfortunately, the English are here for their own greedy ends while the natives do not want the English near a place they call home. Things become worse when Pocahontas’ Fiance, in a jealous rage, attacks her new lover, but is killed by John Smith’s friend who wants to protect him. This causes the two sides to want to go to war with one another over the rights to the land. Pocahontas and John Smith end up caught up in this fued, even though they really want to be together. The tribe takes John Smith captive to kill him for killing one of their own. Pocahontas is determined to stop this feud once and for all. How is this not good story telling? And how can Frozen even compare?

            It funny you say you don’t think Rapunzel is that great of a character because Anna is almost EXACTLY like Rapunzel in personality.

            BTW, if you liked more about the movie than fine. I apologize. Perhaps I mistook your likeness because of the comparison of the musical scores. And to add, most people always seem to mention Frozen’s musical scores but the story development is hardly on anybody’s list of favorites from this movie.

            Pascal and Olaf are two of the most useless characters in Disney’s history. I admit that on both. Modern Disney movies have really dumbed down their sidekicks to absolutely nothing but humor. But that doesn’t make Olaf any more useful. He runs around making noise but doing absolutely nothing. He hardly represents the love of the two sisters because there was barely any sister development throughout the story. He was simply there. Kristoff was not honestly needed in this movie. There was nothing about him that contributed. Elsa found her way up the moment very quickly without Kristoff’s help. I’m sure Anna could have found her way…even the trolls could have helped her on that journey. So, no Kristoff was not needed. Just a quick way for Disney to add a traditionally last minute romance in the story (its more “relate-able that way).

            As far as Pocahontas musical scores: that is the point. The music was made to fit THE STORY, not the other way around. Where as Frozen’s story was made to fit the SONGS. Colors of the wind conveyed the main message of the story. While most of the songs in Frozen were made, and many of them had nothing to do with the main story. “Do you Want to Build a snowman” was an offset song that did not fit with its scene in the movie. Just an example of how there are songs in Frozen that, if you weren’t watching the movie at that moment, you couldn’t make out the story through its songs. Whereas with Pocahontas its easy to see where the story is going through the songs.

            And no, the reason John Smith took a liking to Pocahontas is because she was the only one willing to get close to him and show him more to life than only the things he knows. It had a well developed message of learning to work with others, even if they are different from you. Frozen didn’t even have a message, or rather its messages were all over the place. he Frozen story had no goal. It was just there like most of its characters.

          • Magenta White

            I rarely find anyone say that Pocahontas has a strong story, so to each their own on that one.

            I meant that Rapunzel is not that great of a character because of how she was written. NOT because she and Anna are both bubbly, funny, and cheerful. I just thought that Anna was better written overall, even is she is similar to Rapunzel.

            I read a lot of reviews praise things about Frozen outside of the music on Amazon, iTunes, and IMDb. But I huess you just didn’t see enough.

          • Raygirl

            Majority of people who talk about Frozen only mention how they had many talented voice actors/actresses (which I agree) or how great the musical numbers were. But they rarely talk about the story development nor character development. Perhaps the reason critics are so lenient on this movie is because in a decade filled with animated sequels, Frozen is the best and most original of this decade. But I have higher standards for Disney. I’ve been following Disney for decades, even when they worked with Don Bluth during the classical era. During their Renaissance they made some of the best animated films of all time, known for their engaging stories, their impeccable character evolution as well as powerfully well written lyrics. (It was only with the success of the Disney-parody movie Shrek by Dreamworks when Disney lost its financial viewing). Even during the post-renaissance they made some really good movies although not as successful. Disney is CAPABLE of doing so much better than what they have put out in the last decade. With Disney’s Frozen and even Rapunzel unfortunately (but a little less so), Disney has been forming their stories around the SONGS…but in Disney’s renaissance, what made them spectacular, was they formed the songs around the STORY. This is why the music felt more meaningful to the story. In frozen the songs were catchy, but they lacked meaning toward the story and ended up feeling shallow. the only song that really caught my interest was “Let it Go”. And guess what? This was the first song written before they changed everything. So, yes it was given the most time and effort and shows that Disney can make fantastic songs if they tried.

            Rapunzel had more evolution as in the end she learns who to trust and who not to, and throughout the movie she learns that the world is not as scary as her mother told her; that she is capable of handling herself in the world and that in fact, her mother was the one that needed to be feared all along.
            Anna almost learns the exact lesson (even though she falls in love with Kristoff in less than a week and follows this complete stranger up a mountain). And then there was the relationship with her sister that love can somehow save the day (which this isn’t a lesson for Anna because she recognizes this long before Elsa does)….so how her lesson throughout the story fits is beyond me.
            Elsa is the only one of the two who learns that love, not fear is the key to controlling her powers. Yet, Disney did absolutely nothing to expand on her evolution process throughout the film. She sits in a castle the entire movie until she’s taken by Hans. Then when she sees her sister Frozen ironically she does something random to save her sister, and boom, Anna is saved. That is definitely weak as far as what they could have done with such a unique character. And yet she had probably the strongest evolution in this movie of weak evolution (even though she’s not even the main character). Anna was just there; just like Kristoff, Olaf, and the trolls. Yet, sadly Anna was the main character. Again, they changed everything else in the movie: why not changed Anna as the main character to Elsa?

          • Magenta White

            I still don’t think you have read enough reviews from audiences about Frozen but by what you’re saying about only people liking the music, the soundtrack should have been the only thing that really sold. However, there have been several DVD sales (Frozen is the highest sold family film on Amazon) and the film made over a billion dollars because people wanted to see the FILM repeatedly even when the soundtrack was on sale at the time.

            Anna falling in love with Kristoff after a few days was better than her wanting to MARRY Hans after one. Elsa didn’t save Anna. Anna saved Elsa and herself with her “act of true love.” I guess Elsa’s character wouldn’t be enough to carry on the film. Being a recluse, Elsa wouldn’t really do ENOUGH, so I took it that Anna needed to able to at least get somewhere.

          • Raygirl

            Naturally, people like watching the songs being performed in the movie because its more entertaining. Not to mention people find the characters “humorous” and the animation is “pretty”. (though not as pretty as tangled, Frozen’s animation feels more magical around the Christmas season, don’t you think?). So yes, of course people like it and are buying it.
            But just because it is popular does not mean it had good story development or character evolution. Money does not define greatness.
            There are millions of movies that make so much money, even on DVD (Like Avatar) that honestly was not that great. Then there are movies (Like The Hunchback of Notre Dame) that had powerful messages but didn’t sell that well. Note: Avatar had a large DVD sell. Does that mean it was a good movie? No. Transformers too. The reason people liked that movie is because its animation was fantastic. But its story and character development? Simply was not there. Frozen also is again the most original for its time…after all its coming out during a generation of animated “sequels”. But compared to what Disney can do and has done, it is simply mediocre.

            There are only a few movies that are deserving in my opinion for their top money sells. Most movies get recognized in this modern age because 1.) Its funny 2.) its action packed 3.) the animation is captivating…..and in Frozen’s case 4.) the music is “catchy”. But again I hardly ever see “the story was fantastic and so was the character development and evolution”. I do see a lot of excuses for the story from critics, for example “its a kid’s movie” or “I can let this slide because kids love it”. as if kids movies do not need to be well made with quality. That is another aspect I miss from Disney is that their movies weren’t just for “kids” at one time, but for “families”.

          • Magenta White

            I agree that money doesn’t equal greatness, but you mentioned that people mostly like Frozen for the music, when there is proof otherwise. For about any movie, I rarely hear people mention the character development as the first thing they liked in the film, too, but that doesn’t mean it was bad or they didn’t like it. Beside that, I don’t think that people should only call animated films “kids films,” so I give you that.

          • Raygirl

            Yeah, and I said the only reason they are buying the DVD is because the musical is more entertaining with the visuals. But many people never say they like this movie because it has a good story. Mostly because it has catchy musical scores and the visuals on the DVD make the musicals more entertaining. Trust me, my cousin bought the soundtrack and decided to buy the DVD because she said it looks better with the music. But no one I come across in my life, not critics, nor people online even mention they like this movie because of its story.

          • Magenta White

            Isn’t it kind of expected for people to have liked the story anyway? Without a story there’s no way to keep track of the film itself, and I’m sure most people like the story. That doesn’t mean that it was forgettable or none at all. To me, if someone says they like a film, that implies the story.

          • Raygirl

            Well, no. I don’t expect everyone to be into strong story development like me or at least not everyone is looking for this when they watch a movie. There are many movies that people rave over that they may like for numerous of reasons, such as Transformers. But the stories are easily overlooked in musicals and action movies because so much more time is put into the musical score and the action scene to the point there is little dialogue nor development between the characters and the story. Just because people say they like a film does not mean they automatically like the story. Most people might say they love the characters or the music or the visuals. Some might even say they like the social ideas that the movie encourages. People like movies for a variety of different reasons. I enjoy movies when they have an strong story development and character evolution.

            Perhaps some people did like the story. I just never hear anyone say that is what they liked about Frozen or the most about Frozen. I hear everything but this aspect of the movie. And like I said, people don’t have to care about a story all the time. there are other things to like in a movie. However, I personally like a strong story. And I did not see this in Frozen. I also felt the characters did not evolve. They seemed to remain stagnant throughout. They were relate-able…but they did not grow or change from their experiences to the fullest extent. Elsa had the strongest evolution, however I wish they could have expanded on her evolution a little more.

          • Magenta White

            To each their own.

          • Raygirl

            That’s what I meant that Anna saved Elsa. My point is that Elsa is the one that learned that love not fear conquers her powers. Anna already knew this from the start.
            Elsa wouldn’t do enough? What couldn’t a person with Ice powers do? lol Yes, the way they MADE the new the story Anna was the one that “saves” Elsa even though she is also the victim of Elsa’s powers. However, Elsa is the most interesting character and if they had made her the main character this movie would have been more bearable. If they expanded on Elsa’s there would have been more character evolution. Simple.
            Anna again would have been better as a sidekick character. Many sidekick characters are usually the voice of reason for the main characters. Take Nala for example who serves as both the lover and the sidekick. When she finds Simba, she tries to convince him to come back to and help him stop running away from the past. Anna did this very same thing…the only difference is she is the main character. Whereas Elsa is like Simba. She was running away from a past that haunted her too. But the difference is this character is not the main character. If Elsa was the main character the story would have had something to go on; the discovery of her powers. Elsa’s evolution would have carried the film with a much stronger base.

            It could have been a good movie and had a lot of potential. The movie they gave us lacks.

          • Magenta White

            I don’t think that Anna really knew what love was from the start. Dhe even mentions it herself after Hans betrays her. She had to learn (the hard way) that love doesn’t mean a pretty face and to take it easy with other relationships.

            Personally, I don’t like you adding “simple” to the end of every sentence like I should totally see your point.

            Sure, a person with ice powers could do much, but Elsa doesn’t want to use her powers, which is her main conflict in the film.

          • Raygirl

            Anna knew that the love she had for her sister was there and that she just needed to show her sister. This is why Anna went after her sister in the first place. As far as her “romantic” interest, she basically learned the same lesson as Rapunzel: you can’t trust everyone. I don’t think a pretty face was the only thing that had to do with her falling in love with Hans. It more-so had to do with the fact that he was the only person she could really talk to and he seemed to get her more than anyone at that time. She felt he was the one filling the emptiness she was feeling when her and her sister grew apart; a way out of her lonliness. However, even with her rushed approach to asking Kristoff to help her, the girl was a little to trusting…which is exactly like Rapunzel. Both of them asked a “strange man” to help them out of a situation because they were both naive. Unfortunately, the lesson in Frozen was not as clear as in Rapunzel because while the story is SUPPOSED to be about Anna and her sister, Anna (who is the main character) ends up having a lesson on romance throughout the movie instead….They should have omitted Kristoff and focused on the sisters rekindling their relationship. Either that or they should have made Kristoff into an old man or something. But making him a love interest made the story’s messages seem sloppy in my opinion.

            My point with Elsa is they could have expanded on her fears and made her steadily learn to trust her powers more. But again, they didn’t do that. There was no evolution. Of course she doesn’t want to use her powers. But that doesn’t mean they could not have expanded on this fear. Even simba from the Lion King was afraid. But his fears is what made the story even more engaging. And if they had done this with Elsa, (especially if she was the main character) at least the story would have a goal.

            Its ironic how you state what you don’t like in my posts after calling me “condescending” from the start. There’s a lot of things I don’t like about your post, but I’m not automatically assuming that you are being insulting/ taking it personally.

  • no name

    I don’t know how exactly to compare most aspects of both films, I definitely prefer the songs in Frozen. The songs in Tangled (except for I see the light) are boring to me. Aside from one or two songs in Frozen (which aren’t even that bad or boring), I really enjoy the rest of its songs.

  • Nathan C.

    Definitely Tangled. The plot is much more focused and inspired. Sure, both movies are creative, but I felt Tangled t was far more enjoyable.

    The only area where I would say Frozen wins is in the music. Most of its songs are pretty darn catchy.

  • Gianna

    TANGLED!!!!!!!! IT’S PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The script, animation, plot, story, voice acting, and YES, even characters, for me, win over Frozen’s wonderful songs and characters 🙂 The Tangled story was extremely subtle and I loved it that way. Frozen was terrific, but not very subtle.

  • V

    Frozen any day. Tangled is a charming little princess film. Frozen is an epic that subverts all the princess troupes, has splendorous characterization and brilliant songs. All that you’d expect from a Disney classic and more.

    • Raygirl

      I’d expect a Disney classic to have a better story, though. There was more to Disney than just catchy music…they used to have engaging stories that kept you on your seat. Frozen just didn’t do that for me. I mean, I know both of these movies are popular…but personally they are BOTH lacking what makes Disney so fantastic. Tangled lacked the power of its musical numbers. Frozen lacked a clear story goal/direction. If only Disney could return to combining these elements rather than supplementing one for the other.

  • It comes down to a personal choice and I choose Frozen! Story problems aside, it’s just so entertaining and epic! And I love the music, its among Disney’s very best! Go Frozen! (Tangled I still love you).

    • That’s the ticket! See, coming down to a personal choice is a totally subjective thing, and I applaud you for putting that opinion in the comments rather than making the analysis opinion based in the article. Thanks, most people would have combined the two and done the comparison a disservice! 🙂

  • Richard Neff

    I don’t know if it’s because Rapunzel is a better known story (at least for myself) than that of Frozen, but I enjoyed Tangled more because I liked seeing what Disney did with the classic fairy tale. It was always the one that I had been waiting for them to do. The story of Frozen, however, was not firmiliar to me at all, so I didn’t have anything to compare it to. While I did enjoy the story of Frozen, I felt it could have been better.

  • James

    There really is no winner, except if someone has a personal preference. For example, I like Tangled more because there is actually a guy character for me to relate to. Sure there was Kristoff, but he took a back seat to the sisters for the whole film, which is fine, but Flynn is definitely the better male lead, simply because he gets more screen time, focus, and character growth. Both of these films have strengths and weaknesses, but no more than your average Disney flick.

    I also felt that Frozen was too blatant when it changed the Disney formula. There is nothing wrong with changing the status quo, but would some subtly kill ya? I felt like every time a character chastised Anna for wanting to marry someone she just met, John Lasseter was winking and elbowing me saying “Get it? GET IT? WE’RE CHANGING THE DISNEY FORMULA!”. Every single time Anna or Elsa took things into their own hands, there is Mr. Lasseter by my side yelling “Do ya get it!?!? THESE Disney princesses don’t need a Prince Charming to save them!”.

    Frozen is a remarkably beautiful film, but subtle and smooth it is not.

    • Actually when Hans proposed to Anna, my thought was ‘this is sooooo Disney’……

  • Well you guys totally inspired me to take an in depth look at this pairing from the perspective of film making! I’ve done a complimentary article of the same type here: http://www.animatorisland.com/tangled-vs-frozen-which-is-the-better-movie-indeed/ If anyone from the discussion below is looking for more details as to how I came to the conclusion that Tangled is the superior film from an objective point of view, the full explanation can be found there. Hope that’s helpful! Great job sparking a terrific discussion, Gary. 🙂

    • Keyblademaster123

      I would read it, but as I said in the you’re comments above, that it’s completely subjective matter. You think Tangled is superior to Frozen objectively, but it’s completely subjective. Each human being is different and it’s you’re choice to think if Tangled is better than Frozen, but that does not prove it as a fact aka objective.

      If I’m coming off as disrespectful towards you I’m sorry. I never want to come off as such, I just get tired of hearing people think it’s a fact that a film is superior to another one. That is you’re view for thinking Tangled is better than Frozen, but it’s not fact or objective.

      • CascadeWvera1

        Thank you. It just irritates me too.

      • enidrej

        It’s a never-ending loop, aye? 🙂
        To simplify, choose Tangled as best if you prefer it OR choose Frozen if you choose otherwise but we should not expect everyone to agree with us albeit the proofs we can provide.
        But on the side note, I’m just curious, why do you think Frozen is a financially successful movie as it is that even the creators and critics doesn’t anticipate any of it?

        • I think Frozen became a commercial success mainly because of good timing and a lack of direct competition. It also has a really unique premise, great songs and a “classic Disney” feel which attracted crowds by the droves. Clearly people were craving a good old fashioned Disney musical at the end of 2013 and Frozen delivered! Hoping Big Hero 6 is a big hit too.

          • enidrej

            Though, why is it still #1 in Japan for 11 weeks and predicted to do so continuously? Japan had different culture or taste than Americans/Westerns (I’m an Asian, btw). For me though, if I may pinpoint what is the reason, I think its not the songs or what not, I think it’s the 2 sisters that attracts the people. They’re not perfect, their life and story are messy, their pacing, actions and decisions are weird and unexplainable… which is a breath of fresh air in today’s adaptations, re-boot and sequels movies. These 2 characters are like your annoying siblings/friends that although they imperfect, you still love them cause you see yourself in them and I hope more movies will follow suit and avoid being too formulaic just to please critics or experts cause those won’t give you the box office anyways. 🙂

          • Keyblademaster123

            Yes I agree with you completely glad you understand why Frozen is a great movie. I’m not going to leave Tangled out though I love them both equally. They both will definitely be remembered years later and they are pretty much classics. 🙂

          • Keyblademaster123

            But to add on to the sisters, the songs, characters, and animation is what also drives people. The story is pretty much split with a estimate guess of maybe 85% of the people loving the story and the rest calling it average or in most cases, hater corner. They mainly take up the majority of the minority, if that makes any sense.

          • I think we’re in the same page! It is the 2 sisters that made me love Frozen! Watching them so close together as kids and then tragically separated creates a yearning to see them be reunited again, and I’m sure the audience too have this tugging in them. I really have to credit Disney for willing to explore something new instead of another ‘typical’ fairy tale ending.

        • I think the others did a great job at reasoning why Frozen has become such a commercial success. I think it also has a little bit to do with the “viral video factor.” Sometimes when videos go viral there’s a reason, and one can narrow it down and partially explain it. Sometimes, though, it just happens. The world jumps on board and there’s not a huge amount of logic that can explain it. I think part of Frozen’s popularity is “right time, right place” and hey, that’s okay. Every so often that happens with a film, and it’s lightning in a bottle. To try and get that lighting back into the bottle, or try to reproduce it, is generally a fool’s errand.

          Frozen also did a great job at “tickling people’s ears.” It presented some very popular current ideologies, like the “true love doesn’t require a man” angle, and also “you should be who you want to be not who people say you have to be.” After it’s release, the web exploded with articles on topics like that, and I have no doubt that contributed to its success.

      • No disrespect at all, it’s just a friendly discussion. No worries! 🙂

        “Each human being is different and it’s you’re choice to think if Tangled
        is better than Frozen, but that does not prove it as a fact aka

        Where our opinions seem to differ is that you believe there is ONLY human choice and “preference” when it comes to films. I do not feel the same way. I think the majority of people determine “good and bad” based on personal choice and emotion, etc. etc., but I think there is a way to view film from a more technical point of view, based on history of film, story, character, and other factors. That is my attempt when we discuss if one movie is BETTER than another. Now, if the title of an article was “Which do you prefer: Tangled or Frozen” I think that’s a whole other topic, and what you’re saying is spot on in that regard! No one’s opinion is fact when discussing preference, it boils down to the individual. I just don’t think it can ONLY boil down to the individual.

        If two painters paint landscapes and ones strokes are weak and nervous but the other paints with confident lines and forms, one painting will be superior in execution. It will be “better.” Now, you may like the less confident artist’s painting more, perhaps it has your favorite color in it, say, but that is a whole other topic than which is the superior painting.

        Of course that opens a whole other discussion, but I hope that helps to explain my perspective on this. I understand what you mean being annoyed when people parade around opinion as fact. I’m trying my best not to do that, but look at it outside of my personal thoughts on the matter. If I were to pen an article “Why I love Tangled more than Frozen” you can bet I wouldn’t claim any of it to be objective, that’s for sure! Then it would be entirely the realm of opinion.

        • At the risk of derailing this topic, your example is precisely why I don’t agree with the “objectivity” you have been promoting throughout this post:

          “If two painters paint landscapes and ones strokes are weak and nervous but the other paints with confident lines and forms, one painting will be superior in execution. It will be “better.” Now, you may like the less confident artist’s painting more, perhaps it has your favorite color in it, say, but that is a whole other topic than which is the superior painting.”

          Applying the objective standards of what made a good landscape during the beginning of the twentieth century meant that the initial response to the work of the Impressionists (as with many artists from that time period that we admire today) was rejection, because their technique, choices, use of colour, were perceived as being wrong, their technique poor. Subsequently, the “objective” standards of what makes good art adjusted, though people still argue over it today. As with anything, really — including storytelling. When looking at those two paintings, you are making judgements about what constitutes “confident lines and forms,” or what a “nervous” artist’s work might look like. Note that you are judging the paintings, not the artists, so your information is coming entirely from what is in front of you.

          In other words, by claiming objectivity, you are already beginning this process of evaluation by bringing in your own biases and preconceptions. There is no way around this. No one, anywhere, is purely objective, because the standards we use to evaluate things keep changing (which is why I suggested in another comment that the best approach is to think of analysis as “inquiry,” rather than judgement). Now, that isn’t to say that there is no such thing as technique or that the”quality” or “validity” of a particular type of work is entirely subjective. It isn’t, and one opinion isn’t necessarily as good as the other. But it isn’t entirely objective, either, and you risk applying standards to a particular type of work that it never aimed to live up to in the first place… or accept biases in your analysis without realising you are doing it.

          • Keyblademaster123

            Exactly what I mean. Glad you see that way. Film is subjective because each person sees it differently. There really isn’t objectivity to films, which has been argued for a long time. Heck I’ve been in debates about gaming and music before in the past and they all conclude that it’s subjective. Film is no different.

          • If they “all conclude it’s subjective” then you’ve been in some very one sided debates.

          • Keyblademaster123

            No the debates had a lot of objectives sides too. Me and many others won the debate years ago. You don’t have to believe me and keep thinking film is objective, but it isn’t.

          • Of course total objectivity is impossible for us, but that still doesn’t mean one can’t be mostly objective. I don’t believe that for a second. I think “quality” and “validity” are two very different things. One can objectively judge the quality of something, as I mentioned with the confidence of a brush stroke. One is going to be superior of a brush stroke. If you don’t like the stroke, cool beans. That’s another thing entirely.

            I’m going to stop arguing this point now, because there are a crowd of people who refuse to accept art is ANYTHING but subjective, 100% of the time, always and forever the end period exclamation point. There’s no having a discussion with people who believe something 100% like that. There’s no room for debate, because there’s no give and take. I don’t believe it’s 100% subjective, and some people do. That’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree, and I certainly won’t be convinced by an argument that says “All art is equal because it’s subjective.” That’s nonsense to me.

          • “All art is equal because it’s subjective.”

            I hope you don’t take that from my post, because it isn’t what I am arguing at all. I was very careful to say, “Now, that isn’t to say that there is no such thing as technique or that the”quality” or “validity” of a particular type of work is entirely subjective. It isn’t, and one opinion isn’t necessarily as good as the other. But it isn’t entirely objective, either.”

            What I am getting at, which is why I used your example of the two paintings and the reference to the Impressionists, is that there is no such thing as a magical objectivity that allows you rise above your own individuality and preference, or a universal standard that we can all apply. Look at the source of your standards of evaluation:

            “I am not basing my analysis on personal feelings here. I am basing them on a history of film and a lifetime of study.”

            But film is subject to change, just as fine art and literature, or music or even animation, and so we have to adjust the way we look at them accordingly. In fact, even professional critics and academics will spend a lifetime arguing over what makes something a good piece of work, or reviews or even peer reviewed articles would all come to the same conclusions. One way to avoid this is by acknowledging that when we sit to look at something, we bring with us the baggage and limitations of our knowledge and experience, and not doing so might lead us to value one aspect of what we are looking at over another. Admittedly, you get it partly right by saying you can’t always be objective when looking at something. But taking your feelings out of it and assuming everything is subject to a certain set of standards are two very different things. Just the act of choosing which standards you are going to use is already a step towards subjective analysis.

            Also, I find it interesting that you are irritated by the 100% subjective arguments, when your own position is actually rather stifling when it comes to debate. When you say…

            “Oh this isn’t a poll. There isn’t any conversation to be HAD here. Tangled is leagues better in every conceivable way minus music.”

            …And then frame yourself, throughout the post, as being an objective viewer (or someone who tries to be) who won’t take personal feelings into account, the implication is that anyone who disagrees with you either lacks your level of knowledge or is allowing their feelings to get in the way. I see why people have felt the need to respond.

          • Keyblademaster123

            Yes exactly, that’s another thing I didn’t want to say before. When someone says about objectivity or facts about film they feel the need that people that claim film to subjective lacks knowledge. That is not true in any regards and really is insulting, kind of. I felt the need to come back after all those years of pointless debates because it popped up again. That is very frustrating to see again.

            We all have different perspectives when it comes to film, but it’s all subjective in the end. You pretty much nailed it when saying this and I applaud for you’re comment. 🙂

          • I feel the need to add something here, just to make absolutely sure my comments aren’t being misunderstood. People might have different views, come to different conclusions, have wildly diverging opinions etc, but that doesn’t mean all opinions are equal or that everyone is right. I do agree with the JK Riki on this point. Careful, detailed discussion can help clarify the strengths and weaknesses of any given work, and I say this acknowledging that one work of art can, indeed, be better than another, even if the reasons aren’t always entirely clear, or even if it is, for some reason, largely ignored.

            The key is clarity in argument. State your standards for judgement, give examples, explain your reasoning and persuade me to your point of view and expect challenges. That’s what makes it so fun, after all 😉

          • Keyblademaster123

            That is the point though. It’s all different from each person and making objectivity in film pointless. Film is a subjective art, much like other pieces of art.

            I film isn’t any different to the likes of music or videogames in that regard. Coming from someone who is a critic in both film and gaming. For example, people prefer the style of story and graphics over gameplay and say they are right in that regard. Then the other side says gameplay. At the end of it all people realize that gaming is completely subjective because everyone asks for something to improve on in a franchise game or stand alone one.

            Film is no exception to that same rule. It follows that same subjectivity as well as having personal preference in what you like to watch more. I see to many debates back in the day and see subjectivity being the answer because everyone is different. I’m willing to take a challenge on someone’s opinion of movies as long as they don’t go on about what is objectively (fact) superior over the other.

          • Oh yeah, I do agree that it is different for each person, but the key thing I really want to emphasise, because this topic leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation, is that, no matter how different the range of response, it is still coming from the same source material. That means that someone can have a completely different opinion from me about Frozen’s quality as a film, which is fair enough. But if that opinion is, say, holding the film to unfair standards, if it is based on a misunderstanding or, as JK Riki has been arguing, is too influenced by personal feelings, then that opinion isn’t necessarily worth taking seriously and won’t be as good as one put forward by someone who has both understood the film and the intention of its its creators. Part of debating something is being able to evaluate opposing views critically, or you risk devaluing your own.

            Where I disagree with JK Riki is the idea that the quality of a work of art can be determined by a set of standards, and that its quality is dependent on how well it lives up that. My view is that external standards change and storytelling evolves and changes according to the storyteller, and different people might apply different standards of evaluation and so reach different conclusions. In that sense, claiming an “objective” viewpoint is bound to lead to a lot of frustration. What keeps this from being entirely subjective and all views equal, however, is that we are all taking our conclusions from the same source material, and although the interpretation of that material is up for discussion, the facts on the page/screen are not, which is partly why I put so much emphasis on the original work.

            And lol, the original article has led to so many interesting discussions!

          • Keyblademaster123

            That’s another thing people actually do take personal feelings into account and take them seriously. Yes the objective viewpoint brings a lot of frustration which is why people say film is completely subjectivity, which is still. I have never seen anyone been taken seriously when they go on thinking a movie superior over the other. I sound like broken record at this point, but I’m trying to get across that film is subjective. Music and gaming as had this same debate and comes up as subjective. Why film any different? Quite frankly it’s not, it’s following the same path the other two have been on for years.

            This is why i grew tired of these debates. They never end up going anywhere until someone decides to come around and tell them it’s subjective.

          • Hopefully what I wrote above in the second half of my reply (which got rather lengthy) brings together the two perspectives a little more. I gained a lot from your clarification, so thanks for that!

          • @Keyblade “At the end of it all people realize that gaming is completely subjective”

            I am getting a bit frustrated with your lack of actual discussion. You are ignoring any input anyone else is giving you and turning around and saying “Yes, I agree that I am right.” The comment above is a perfect display of that “All people realize that gaming is completely subjective” is 100% factually untrue because I do not believe it is completely subjective, which means “all people” do not come to your same conclusion. I believe some games are objectively programmed better than others, from a programming perspective. If a game is masterfully crafted and placed next to one that is completely filled with bugs, an illogical story, and broken controls that only work 1/2 the time, you really want to say it’s not an objective call? That they are equal? That sounds bogus to me. To me that’s dramatically forcing your personal feelings- not of art but of subjectivity- on the situation. I’m not sure if you even see that, though. I think you might be so hung up on “Art has to be subjective 100% of the time” that you aren’t even trying to see that life is rarely if ever so black and white. Of course it is also possible that you think everything everywhere is subjective, some people do. Most do not.

            AlixEcho has done a tremendous job clarifying their position. The two of us disagree, but I understand where they are coming from and we can find mutual ground, even if that ground is that we just disagree. You keep coming back with the same words just rephrased, and saying “it’s right because I say its right” or “it’s right because EVERYONE thinks it right.” That argument makes it seem like you have your fingers in your ears and you aren’t talking TO anyone, but talking at them.

            I only tell you this so you are aware of it, because I spent many years being unaware of how my comments were perceived by others. I’m working towards better understanding that myself, and improving how I communicate so that people don’t think I’m coming off as arrogant or self-righteous. I don’t mean it that way, but I see now that sometimes I write in that style. I’m trying to fix that every day. I’m telling you you’re coming across as someone who has no desire to have any discussion, only back up their opinion with “Everyone says I’m right.” Do with that information what you will, I am just bringing it to your attention if you care.

            @Alix That’s a really interesting point you make on where our opinions differ. So, just so I’m clear, you’re saying the objective angle of film is in first establishing a set of standards, yes? Essentially “Here are the guidelines in which to discuss, and now we can have an objective discussion” if I’m understanding you correctly. (And if I’m not, please let me know.)

            If that’s the case, it really opens my eyes to how I was going about discussing things. For me, the “rule set” you’re talking about has already been long established, because I’ve done so much study into film creation and things like composition and animation. So there’s a pre-existing set of standards that are the root of the arguments I’ve been attempting to make.

            What I DIDN’T fully realize until now is that just because I know these industry standards that have been etched over the history of filmmaking on Earth (having spent a large part of my life studying them in the hopes of making great films one day), most other people probably have no idea what I’m basing this all on. I too often forget so many people watch movies for the fun of it all, not to study every editing choice in order to determine what went right and what went wrong. In the same way as when I talked earlier about an artist’s line being more confident (and better) compared to another. There I probably should have made note that the structure of my basis was two artists working on the same style piece and one is simply less confident. In my world less confident lines are objectively not as high in quality as non confident lines, that is the standard in the art industry.

            I suppose we could dive deeper into the pool, though, where we start to consider nothing, ever, is objective. And in that sense, it would be opinion that two lines put next to each other can never be anything but subjective. The only thing is, I don’t think the majority of people live in that world. It’s actually a rather scary place, because nothing is ever “true” because everything is dependent on the individual, and if the individual’s opinion changes what was once “true” because “false.” It is playing God. And honestly I don’t mind dipping my toes into that end of the bigger-picture-life-questions pool some days, but it’s extremely deep stuff and probably not suited for a comment section of a blog about animation. 🙂

            So anyway, my apologies for not classifying the concrete set of guidelines I was basing my objective judgement on. I appreciate you continuing to clarify your point, because now I can go forward from here and know to set up those clarifications earlier instead of waiting until now. Just to make crystal clear the angle I’ve been discussing from the very beginning (now, days later, ha ha) I am basing my argument for a “better” of the two films on not my own opinion, but the basis of film that is the industry standard which has been formed over the past 100 years. In another 100 years that standard may very well change, you’re absolutely right. In the here and now, though, I’d consider that standard as “objective” as we can probably ever reach, wouldn’t you agree? In that sense, I think we can compare and contrast any film and determine its “quality” level so long as we are comparing each to the same standard, and we’re all on the same page for what that standard is.

            Awesome discussion, thanks! 🙂

          • Keyblademaster123

            Whatever you think is right for you. I find it insulting you think I’m saying figuratively that I’m right and you’re wrong when I clearly am not. Everybody has their own way of thinking what’s a good or bad film. At the end of the day that is subjectivity really. I was trying to help you see that. This is why discussions like these are frustrating inducing. Sure if you bring technical aspects of something sure, but that doesn’t mean the quality is different. I guess I accidentally typed that while I was frustrated from this pointless discussion about gaming. Gaming is a different form of art that yes the technical aspects make it have objectivity and I know that since I’m a game critic myself. Film however is different cause everybody sees it differently. What you have as “standards” is different from others.

            Like I said I’m not saying I’m right, I’m helping you see that it’s subjectivity because you view it differently. Overall Tangled and Frozen equal to each other and are as great as the other classics. They both will definitely be instant classics and be remembered for generations. If you say Tangled is superior to Frozen that’s you’re opinion and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you’re right that objectively it is. That is subjective.

            If you think I’m ignoring anything from this and not caring, that’s far from it. I care about these types of things because I’m tired of people who think it’s right to say that a certain film is better than this film because of this aspect. That’s you’re view of it and that’s fine. In today’s world of standards I rarely see anyone say film is objective anymore. I watch reviewers and audiences discuss about movies and in the end they say it’s subjective. Even the people I watch who think film is objective say in the end it’s subjective because we are all unique.

            I won’t be surprised if you reply back. Just so you know please don’t go in and say that I’m saying I’m right and you’re wrong. That’s very insulting and should not come down to that. Also I hope you don’t use this discussion and say I’m one of those idiots who say everything is subjective. That would be hurting to see and read, especially if people like to insult others like you did with me. I never insulted you or ignore you’re points, but I see that same wording from the minority of the same people.

          • I in no way mean to be insulting, so I apologize if I’ve come off that way. We just seem to disagree on a very fundamental level about film and how it can be judged. While it’s absolutely true that it DOES boil down to subjective opinion on your final opinion of the film, there are- in my opinion- many industry standards or at the very least previous films that can form a structure which objective judgement can be gleaned from.

            “Overall Tangled and Frozen equal to each other and are as great as the other classics. They both will definitely be instant classics and be remembered for generations. If you say Tangled is superior to Frozen that’s you’re opinion and that’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you’re right that objectively it is. That is subjective.”

            Okay, let’s talk about Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return for a moment. Did you see it? Chances are you have not, which is fine. Very few people saw it. Let me tell you that it is a mediocre movie at best and a bad film at worst. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can find that opinion all over the place, including from Rotoscoper’s very own Morgan Stradling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNrdbF3ZqIA

            My “opinion” that Legends of Oz is not a good movie is not based on if I liked it. It is based on the fact that it is a poorly made movie. (To be honest, I didn’t even mind it. Parts were hard to watch because of the bad film making, but I disliked Turbo a lot more yet Turbo was a better film.) The quality of the movie is poor. So I can say, my opinion aside, “Legends of Oz lacks the quality of film making that appeared in Frozen.” That is a factual, non-subjective statement. Another way to phrase that is “Frozen is a better film than Legends of Oz.”

            Is Legends of Oz equal to Tangled and Frozen? There are two answer to this question, of course. Yes or no. If the answer is yes, then I simply can’t agree with you and we’ll leave it at that, no harm no foul. I don’t believe the answer is yes, and it’s unlikely you’ll convince me otherwise.

            If the answer is no, however, then that means there is an objective standard which we can hold all three films to and that indeed one IS better than another. Which means that film review is NOT entirely subjective. CAN it be entirely subjective? Yes. Does it have to be? No. It can also be objective. It can even be more objective than subjective. Can it be entirely objective? Unlikely, as we are only human and not machines. That is my point. The idea that all film/games/whatever is subjective is just not accurate, which I offer the proof above to theorize. If you think Frozen and Legends of Oz are both equal in terms of quality and film making, then I have nothing else to say.

          • Keyblademaster123

            Don’t remind me of that film, I’ve seen if and burned my ticket after. Plus the reviewers I watch said the same thing. I see what you’re saying, but still Frozen is equal to Tangled and the other great classics that’s all I can say. I’m sorry but that still isn’t convincing me of that. I see the points but it still comes down to the person and that’s subjective. I pretty much sounding like a broken record, but I don’t know how to tell you any other way. The reviewers I watch are people who know about the industry and the art and they never say one is superior than the other. That makes a movie that’s inferior look bad and hurts those who like or love a movie.

            Gary Wright is pretty much and the same page that these two can’t compare because there equal. I can say the same thing for them being equal to the other great classics since I grew up with the Disney reinassance. Plus these two, (and WIR hopefully) are instant classics.

          • “The reviewers I watch are people who know about the industry and the art
            and they never say one is superior than the other. That makes a movie
            that’s inferior look bad and hurts those who like or love a movie.”

            I guess we just observe very, very different reviewers. I have met no one except you who claims Legends of Oz is on equal footing to Tangled and Frozen. None. I can’t fathom that those reviewers could be taken seriously. Oz is just not as well made, that’s no an opinion in my eyes.

            I also really want to stress that this isn’t about making anyone feel bad. That’s something that I’d really suggest you learn about, because it will help you tremendously going forward in life. Just because anyone- me, you, the President, your uncle, Bill Gates, whoever- says something about something you like does NOT mean it’s an attack on you or that you should feel bad. I brought up The Great Mouse Detective earlier. Mouse Detective has so, so many flaws. Objective flaws, too, not just personal-preference ones. And you can point those out to me and I will say “You are right” because it’s the honest truth. BUT that absolutely doesn’t diminish my love for The Great Mouse Detective. I ADORE the film. It is why I became an animator. There is a difference between how I love the film and the quality of its components. Just because something isn’t perfect does not mean YOU (or I) are wrong for liking it. In no way does one film being better than another mean you can’t like anything more or less. It’s not an attack on you. It’s not an attack on anything or anyone. It’s putting all the cards on the table and leaving opinions out. It’s saying “Here is what is on the screen right now” and not at all what anyone thinks of what is on the screen.

            So in summary, I can’t agree with you that Legend of Oz is on equal footing as Frozen and Tangled, I’m sorry. That isn’t to say anyone shouldn’t like Legend of Oz, but from every perspective I feel comfortable taking it is just simply an inferior film to the others. And that, to me, is not subjective. Which, to me, proves film is not 100% subjective. However you are absolutely free to make your own decision in that regard and call Oz just as good of a film as Frozen.

          • Keyblademaster123

            You misunderstood my comment on Legends if Oz I said I didn’t want to be reminded of that movie and I burned my ticket after. I never said it was equal to Tangled or Frozen. I was saying Frozen and Tangled are equal to each other and equal to the other great classics.

            Also even with cards on the table as you say it’s still you’re view of what is objective when it’s still subjective in that matter. We all see things differently on what is a flaw in a film thus makes it all subjective. What ever you see differently in the quality of the film is on you. Not on facts, that’s casting aside why we are all different.

            Sorry if you misunderstood with the Oz movie, but I never said it was equal to Frozen and Tangled. I was merely still on the Frozen/Tangled are definitely instant classics and remembered for generations thing for the last comments.

          • Oh. Okay, so would you then agree that “Legends of Oz” is a worse made film than Frozen and Tangled?

          • Keyblademaster123

            Yea had to see it, since it’s kinda my job to 🙂 and burned my ticket after I left the theater.

          • Well then I think we’re on the same page. We disagree about the gap between Frozen and Tangled in terms of quality, but we don’t disagree then that Legends of Oz was objectively a worse made film than those two and not equal to them, hence film is not entirely subjective. Glad we could finally get to that point! 🙂 Good talk.

    • CascadeWvera1

      You’re treating this comparison as if it’s a fact. You may think that Tangled is better than Frozen, but that’s not true. Maybe both Tangled AND Frozen will be remembered in the future (if we’re lucky Wreck-It Ralph will come too! ☺️). Film is a subjective art stating that Frozen won’t be remembered is objective. As I said before, we’ll wait. Just don’t make early claims.

      • Keyblademaster123

        I guarantee those 3 films will be remembered. This generation of kids and teens will remember these movies for years. I grew up with the Disney Reinassance and I will say this new reinassance (if they can keep the winning streak going) is no different.

      • No one is claiming any film won’t be remembered. Of course they will. There are 7 billion people on Earth presently, no film is going to fade into obscurity unless it started out in obscurity (and even then the Internet will make sure it is remembered, so long as it exists).

        We will have to agree to disagree regarding the ability to objectively judge films. I believe history has shown that good, well constructed story has a decidedly proven structure and form. I believe you can then place other stories next to that data and determine if they are successful in the same way. Can there be outliers? Of course, but that is an exception to the rule not the norm. And I absolutely don’t think Frozen as a film is some exception to a rule, unless we want to start talking sales and box office numbers.

        Tangled does indeed have its own flaws, and I’m not claiming either is perfect in any way. I’m only comparing the two based on nearly 100 years of film making, and given that set of parameters, Tangled is the superior film. Whether I like it has very little to do with that, because that’s a whole OTHER discussion. The title for that article would be “Which do you prefer: Tangled or Frozen?” (And at this stage of the game, I think we all know what would win. Give it a decade or two and I have a feeling that would change.)

        Hope that clarifies!

        • CascadeWvera1

          Maybe. Maybe not.

          • No, you weren’t annoying at all! I’m glad we can all have a reasonable discussion about this stuff. Often online it’s impossible to, as both sides of an argument latch onto their version and refuse to budge. I absolutely agree with where you’re coming from with the personal taste perspective. Totally agree. I think it’s just one half of a possible conversation, that’s all. I’m sure bits of my analysis were not as objective as I’d like, too. Alas, all part of being human. 🙂

          • Keyblademaster123

            As I said before lol films subjective not objective 😛

          • It is both.

    • Anonymous

      Late to the comments, but I disagree on giving the character nod to Tangled. I don’t think that Idina Menzel is the only problem in terms of voice-acting. Mandy Moore as Rapunzel is very poor, in my opinion. Her voice is more bland than any other Disney Princess’ and very forgettable and “popish.” I can’t remember anything about it expect that it’s girly and sweet. The performance (acting) itself, is below Disney standards. Even if Idina Menzel’s voice as Elsa is a little strong, her performance itself is good.

      I also think that Rapunzel is poorly developed as a character because her isolation doesn’t really have an affect on her which is really bad considering she’s the main protagonist. I mean, despite being convinced by Mother Gothel that people are evil, she opens up to the mad if it’s nothing and knows how they act. For instance, can take out Flynn Rider/Eugene, sings with thugs, and dances with people in the kingdom. So, I can’t exactly give Tangled the nod.

  • voicetek20

    As a complete animation fanatic, lover of musicals, and a lifelong Disney fan, this is probably one of the hardest questions anyone could answer. However, looking at every aspect of both films, I would have to conclude that Tangled is the better movie.

    In reading the comments about this article, there were several people who hit the nail right on the head. There was one user, Brittany, who mentioned the look on Hans’ face after he fell into the water. It was a look of complete love/infatuation with Anna AND when no one was around. So he had an evil plan to con her and take over the kingdom? Not with a look like that he doesn’t. Completely out of character and all for the sake of throwing the audience off. Not good storytelling Disney.

    Yes I could go into all the details about how the royal family were horrible parents, how Elsa was selfish, and how there were many plot holes and lack of character development for the sake of selling an already conceived story, but many of the users on here have already spelled those out in great detail.

    As much as I hate to say this, as a hard-core Disney fan, the world jumped on the “Frozen” bandwagon just like they jumped on the “Titanic” and “Avatar” bandwagons in years past. See, audiences have a tendency to do this for whatever reason. With Titanic it was the love story, with Avatar it was the visuals. With Frozen, I’m sorry to say, people latched onto this movie because of one song – Let it Go. This one song sold an entire world into believing that this was the “best movie since the Lion King.” Really? Can we honestly say this? Forget Tangled, what about animated greats like Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and others? Was Frozen better or more “epic” than The Hunchback of Notre Dame? In my opinion, no.

    The world latched onto a song that promotes running away from your responsibilities because it’s easier, running away from who you’re supposed to be because people “might not” understand you. The song teaches that regardless of your responsibilities and the people who care about you, it’s better to runaway from all this and be alone so you don’t have to explain yourself, so you never have to confront the issues in life that are tough. It’s ok to segregate yourself from you family and to let your kingdom fall to ruin because you don’t want to deal with your issues. Really people? This is the so called “empowerment anthem” that’s captivated the world and was dubbed the poster-song for young children, girls and women? Just horrible. We’ve all been duped.

    Overall I feel Tangled has a much better plot, songs with better messages, and more interesting characters. Yes, it all boils down to personal opinion, but I challenge you to watch these movies again and really compare them. Actually listen to the lyrics of “Let it Go” and look at the story for what it is. Don’t be blinded by a fad. Ask yourself, “Does this part of the story make sense?” I think if people really took time to look at these issues, they would agree too – Tangled is better.

    • CascadeWvera1

      I find it a little bit of an insult to believe that people would only like Frozen because of one song, but you do give good reasons. I’m not going to argue, really.

      • voicetek20

        I don’t see where Rapunzel was “ditching her parents.” Are you talking about her leaving her tower when Mother Gothel was away? You can hardly call that ditching her parents. Mother Gothel had her locked in a tower her entire life. She was being held hostage for Mother Gothel’s selfish reasons. Whether or not Mother Gothel actually cared about Rapunzel also is another story, nonetheless, Rapunzel was a hostage. She was also 18 and she was free to escape and to live her own life. You can’t blame her for wanting to do so. You also cannot compare Rapunzel wanting to free herself from Gothel’s grasp and to discover who she was to that of Elsa fleeing her family, her kingdom, and ignoring her responsibility. Those are two different things. One of them, the case of Rapunzel, is to be expected of a girl her age in her situation. The other, in the case of Elsa, is just selfish and irresponsible. Also, maybe I was a little off by claiming that people only like “Frozen” because of the song “Let it Go,” but in my opinion, it definitely helped.

        • CascadeWvera1

          But I don’t think that Rapunzel knew that Mother Gothel only used her for her hair until the end. Mother Gothel didn’t show her true colors until later. True, it could be expected out of an 18-year-old to leave, but Rapunzel still disobeyed her guardian to leave with a stranger. As for Elsa, I’ll give you that one, but would point out that she also left for the sake of her kingdom and most importantly her sister in the process. Yeah, it kind of looks bad, but Elsa didn’t know that she froze the kingdom. I’ll admit that she may have been selfish to refuse to return with Anna, though.

          But just to let you know, I personally couldn’t like a movie for only one song out of 102 minutes and neither could my friends. So, keep in mind that there are some people who do like Frozen for what it is. But you have a point. Maybe some people could like the film for one song.

          • Yes, particularly as the single for Let it Go never climbed as high in the charts as the album itself. The fact that people were willing to pay more for a more complete product, and not only that, but buy physical, rather than digital copies of that same album and spend money or time with things such as: character costumes, toys, themed parties (all of which have been making booming business, apparently), as well as waiting in long queues to “meet” Anna and Elsa, definitely suggest that this film’s popularity isn’t quite as simple as “they’ve been duped by a song.”

          • AegysLTS

            What is it about the physical album that people go for? I bought the album off iTunes and now was wondering if I miss anything.

          • They don’t have anything extra, so far as I know. It’s the more the idea of owning something tangible. Like buying a bluray or DVD, so you can put it with the rest of your collection, or feeling a greater sense of ownership than you might for something digital. It’s probably down to a whole range of factors, from the experience of owning it, or even that an album makes a better gift for a child, or a reflection of its appeal to different age groups

            Personally, I’ve actually considered buying the physical version myself, because having it in front of me, rather than just on my ipod, seems a bit more special, somehow. Like owning a piece of the film 🙂

          • AegysLTS

            Nice, I used to have a batch of Disney’s Classic soundtrack ……in cassettes! Needless to say, I now personally prefer something that is future-proof 🙂

          • I still remember how upsetting it was when I had to throw away my VHS collection because of mould. Digital definitely has its advantages, lol!

          • AegysLTS

            I don’t think Elsa was being selfish though, granted she was appreciative of Anna coming to her aid, but Anna clearly is just naive and ignorant of how truly dangerous she is. Anyway Elsa did gave her reason too….”How? What power do you have to stop me?”

          • CascadeWvera1

            That’s true. It’s really nobody’s fault.

        • Keyblademaster123

          Yea but elsa did it to protect her kingdom and family. She wasn’t selfish at all throughout the film. She cared for everyone and took responsibility every chance she can get to keep them safe from her. Elsa was never selfish or irresponsible at any point because she tried to get her powers under control and she keeps herself away from others and her sister to protect them. Also Let it go isn’t the only reason. I’ve seen almost every fan of Frozen go on about the story, characters and songs more than just Let it go alone.

          This is why film is completely subjective because we all see it differently and can’t really prove what is superior to other. We can only say what we think is better than the other. Saying the history of film doesn’t really say anything about it being objective. This has been argued time and time again in film. Heck music and gaming has had that and has been concluded by everyone that it’s subjective not objective. Films no different.

        • AegysLTS

          I don’t think it’s fair to accuse Elsa as being irresponsible for ‘running away’, remember that scene outside the castle when the citizens of Arendelle seen first hand how Elsa unleash her powers? The Duke of Weasletown called her a monster and all her subjects were terrified. It was a wise decision on her part too to banish herself so she will not be a danger to her people, she even explicitly said it herself(to Hans).

          I couldn’t imagine what would happen had she decided to stay on as a queen and try to be ‘responsible’, will her kingdom turn against her?

        • enidrej

          “Fear” is what drove Elsa away, that’s the whole recurring theme of the movie, “love vs. fear”. If you thought her running away is being irresponsible and selfish then so be it, BUT isn’t that a very human thing to do? People are trying to kill you, would you just sit there and let it happen OR will you defend yourself and hurt innocents OR you’ll try to reason out to people who are blinded with fear of your powers? Remember she’s scared, put yourself in her shoes, what will you do in a split moment, also remember that she live her whole life isolated, she can’t suddenly become brave and heroic?

        • enidrej

          ALSO, about “Let it go”, she live her whole life thinking that she’s a danger to others (Quote from the movie: “I’m a danger to Arrendalle”) and living in fear of herself to hurt other people (Quote: “Don’t touch me. I don’t want to hurt you.”) so when she finally away from hurting others and she sings her “Let it go”, there this lyrics “And the fear that once controlled me, can’t get to me at all”, yes she’s being “selfish and irresponsible” BUT would you could cut her some slack? She lived 13 years thinking of others, can she, at the moment, think about herself? Is she not allowed at all to be a normal human for once? But please, notice that in the end, she resume her role as a Queen, because Anna pushed her, so isn’t it enough repentance to any sins she’d done? Like I already said, mistakes and selfishness are a very human thing to do. So “Let it go” is an anthem for those who were repressed for years (whatever the circumstances maybe) and finally being selfish for once is not a bad thing even you hurt other people in the process, you’ll learn from your mistakes, isn’t people are allowed to make mistakes, because what you gain from being selfish then learning that it might hurt people, will make you what you really are? It’s not a one day process, it’s gradually.

    • I think that “making sense” angle you discuss is part of the area where we can draw a line between objectivity and subjectivity. Anyway, great comment, really well thought out and I think a great job of explaining the fandom of Frozen along with the issues it has. Nice job.

    • I have to disagree with you about about Let it Go — the film itself is a little more nuanced than that. Yes, Elsa walks away, but Let it Go is less about selfishness than it is about “oh no, I messed up… it’s all over. All over? I’m free? I’m free!” From Elsa’s point of view, everything changed the moment she reveals her powers, since she believes that her lack of control puts people in danger and the trolls heavily implied that she would be at risk if others found out. Walking away wasn’t selfish: she thought it was her only option, and was clearly miserable about her “failure” when she quotes the fear motif (“be the good girl you always have to be be”), until sings the first “let it go,” building up to her finally being able to embrace herself and her own power. The message of empowerment still holds, even if we know that Elsa hasn’t quite got it right at that point. What is important is that Elsa’s “epiphany” or “moment of rebellion” is never never actually undermined by the story, but just represents a part of Elsa’s character development — she is still the ice queen she became during Let it Go at the the end, awesome dress and all. Frozen takes Let it Go and carries it all the way through the film, without ever undermining its central message. That’s what people are “latching on to,” is not the failure, not “giving up responsibilities,” but the rebellious cry of, “I can be who I am, whatever you might say” — and what the film ultimately says, is: “that’s awesome.” That’s not a bad thing for the world to sing about.

      As for putting Frozen’s popularity down to that song alone… I think that’s a bit dismissive. Yes, the song is popular and yes, it clearly struck a chord with the audience, but having seen so many comments, blogs, articles, etc from all over and in real life, too, my impression is that, although Let it Go is a phenomenon and clearly a huge draw, Elsa and Anna themselves are also a very big part of it. If it was all simply down to the song, I doubt the merchandising aspect of the phenomenon would be the overwhelming success that it is, and perhaps Demi Lovato’s version would have been a little more popular. It’s Elsa, in particular, that is driving this, as well as the relationship between Anna and Elsa, which, framed as it was by Do You Want to Build a Snowman, makes it the film incredibly accessible to small children (younger siblings pestering their older brother/sister to play and the older one saying go away is a fact of life for many many families). The song is popular because of the film, not necessarily on its own. That, in itself, suggests that there is a bit more substance to this phenomenon than there was compared to Avatar and Titanic, to use your examples.

    • Ranting Swede

      When Simba sings “I Just Can’t Wait To Be King”, clearly it means we should all take his example and think that being king is about superficial freedoms and ordering people around. It’s not some set up for when he learns his responsibilities as king is about helping his people. When Ursula sings “Poor Unfortunate Souls” and Mother Gothel sings “Mother Knows Best”, clearly because songs teach us values and context within a movie doesn’t matter, we should accept that being seen and not heard is the best way to hook a man and that mothers always know best. In “Love Is An Open Door” and “True Love’s Kiss” from Enchanted, the text is all “Isn’t first love the grandest thing?” and there’s no need to put it in the context of the movie and see these songs for the parodies that they are.

      To my point, “Let It Go” is apparently the end of Elsa’s arc. Forget about how the Duke tells his thugs to “stop her” and calls her a “monster”. Forget how Elsa instantly regrets her causing the storm the moment she finds out that she’s cause eternal winter. Forget how Elsa tells Anna to keep away because she’s trying to protect her. Just forget that there’s a whole movie that surrounds this song that gives context to this song. No, Elsa is SELFISH because she has a song where she says she doesn’t care about the rules that she’s lived with her whole life.

      Yes, I can see how easy it was for you to be duped. For the rest of us, I like to think that we think context matters.

      Anyway, I look at Tangled and think does it make sense that a benevolent kind and queen have a judiciary system in which Flynn would be sentenced to death for stealing a crown without trial? No, I didn’t think so.

      • CascadeWvera1

        Dang. You pretty much summed up everything. Great job!

      • You have lived up to your username. That was an epic rant. I wish I could upvote this many times over.

      • While you make a good point, the world has now taken the song out of context and made it THEIR anthem. So I don’t think it stays in the boundaries you’ve set. “Let it Go” is no longer just a song in a movie, it’s a movement to many people. And it’s important to see it for what it is, not just as “some song.”

        • Ranting Swede

          That’s not Disney’s fault, is it? If the world wants to co-opt Fight Club’s violent fight against consumerism or Che Guavara’s image or V’s mask for their own purposes, do I complain that those companies duped me?

          And for argument’s sake, lyrics wise Let It Go has as much “I am” mantra in it as R E S P E C T and nothing more. Certainly nothing about running away from responsibilities, which is a detail that only gets added when one chooses one thing to remember, the particular thing that fits one’s purposes, and forget the rest of the plot.

          • I wasn’t blaming Disney for anything. Manipulation is par the course in film making. It’s essentially how you go INTO the process from the start. You are trying to make the audience feel certain things. You choose the shots, music, colors, etc. to drive that point home. It’s an art form based around trying to anticipate what people will think and feel given any set of circumstances and then play up the factors you want to guide them towards. There are rules and structure to it. That might be one of the disconnects too with why some folks are hung up on it being subjective vs. objective. Film makers go into making films choosing very concrete and logical sets of patterns to guide the audience. It isn’t in any way random, every detail is planned. Some planning is more successful than others.

      • Keyblademaster123

        Elsa isn’t selfish. She cared for her kingdom and her sister and protects them from her. Let it go doesn’t tell us to forget what has happened in the movie. It tells the viewer that Elsa can finally be who she wants, but at the same time knowing she is still protect everyone from her. The castle scene when she finds out about the curse, she tries to get here powers under control. The hulk is the same way in his movies which took two movies to fully control.

        She isn’t selfish because she thinks of everyone first before thinking about herself sacrificing her own happiness to protect everyone. Let it go finally gives her the freedom to be herself but at the same time protect the people she loves.

        • CascadeWvera1

          I think that Ranting Swede was being sarcastic and making a point that you have to put ‘Let It Go’ in context of the film before saying something like “Elsa’s selfish” which is basically what you said.

          • Keyblademaster123

            Probably, kinda hard to know if he is or not :P. Even though Elsa isn’t selfish or ignorant. Just wanted to make it clear.

    • Ranting Swede

      Are you citing Elsa’s parents being horrible parents as an actual flaw of the movie? That’s just strange, in the light of Tangled.

  • Annie

    I like both.

  • MovieMan995

    I agree in the musical department. Frozen has a very memorable set of music and score. However, I find the songs in Tangled to be underrated. They’re a nice, small set of songs, though with some minor lyrical problems here and there.

    In terms of animation, I’d give the edge to Tangled, actually. Perhaps it might be the Glen Keane influence, but it just seemed more dynamic, natural, and fluid to me. I know some people think the character designs are alike, but I find the designs in Tangled to be more appealing as well. The character designs in Frozen don’t quite have that same charm and personality the Tangled ones do. I’d say this could be attributed to Keane as well. One is ‘authentic’, the other is imitative. Not that I don’t like the Frozen ones (in fact, I do like them).

    In the story department, I think both had compelling narratives. Tangled aims to create a classic Disney fairytale that’s in tune with 21st century sensibilities. It has some ‘attitude’, but it’s also sincere. Frozen aims to be a bit higher as it takes the updated Disney fairytale formula and subverts some key elements. This is great and admirable and all, but I don’t think it’s quite the revolutionary thing everyone sees it as. Overall, though, I’d give the edge to Tangled here as well, as I find the story and writing to be more tighter, whereas Frozen is a little messy–I feel like rewrites in the script are quite evident in the final product.

    So overall, Tangled wins in my heart. However, both films are wonderful, and I’m thankful to have them.

    • meg

      I think I agree in terms of animation in Tangled getting the upper hand for me. I mean character design wise, it’s quite clear they were sticking to the CG disney style and stuff, and lighting clearly got upped in Frozen (it’s on par with MU and it’s fantastic lighting that came out that year too, imo) but I mean character animation wise, after Wreck it Ralph and Tangled, I was surprised how the characters moved in Frozen. Other than a couple of golden moments with Olaf and Sven the characters seemed to move I don’t know just not as animated and energetic as the past two? Idk how to describe it, I don’t wanna say stiff I think that’s going a little too far but I feel like the animators didn’t stretch it as much as they’d done in the past few films.

      I find Tangled really perfected that balance of knowing when to make characters stretch and squash and perfect the visual humour and timing, but they also knew when things needed to reel back and bring in that very human emotion that brings on the water works. Seriously, scenes with the parents and the climax when Eugene is dying (do I even need a *spoiler* here? :P) just really get to me, if I ever get into the animation industry I aspire for my work to be that awesome daaang *o*

  • Eric Faulkner

    I never liked Mother Knows Best to me it is one of the weaker Disney Songs.

    • I think it’s one of the best songs in Tangled- especially the chilling reprise! Probably the only song in Tangled which has a typical Broadway flair.

      • voicetek20

        I absolutely love the reprise. It gives me chills every time I listen to it! You cannot discount the genius of Alan Menken’s music.

    • CascadeWvera1

      It’s not that bad. It shows what things Mother Gothel did to Rapunzel to scare her (and I think that it’s funny!)

  • Yuri Allysson

    Honestly, I like both, but if I really had to choose, I would say Frozen. Although I think the story in Tangled is better, I felt like it was too funny and lightened, and I’m more into dark stories. Also, Frozen is a very special film for me because it’s a movie with I can relate, and although I felt like the things happened too fast, I also felt like it was my movie.
    But honestly, I don’t think these movies need to be compared, for me, they’re like equivalent to each other, I think one is incomplete without the other.

  • zheart

    #TeamFrozen I can’t even believe this is a discussion.

    • Varg2000

      I can’t believe the results in the above article. Frozen should be the obvious winner.

      • Pro

        Right !!!

        FROZEN should be the winner….I think there’s something problem with the poll vote….it is kinda showing results reversely.

        • Varg2000

          Yes, something is seriously wrong with the poll. More Frozen-fans should see this article and get it right! Although many of the Frozen-fans probably don’t vote because they don’t take it seriously, I mean Frozen would be the definitive leader.

          • Pro

            Yeah! seriously…

        • Raygirl

          Nah, Tangled is better in my opinion. Frozen may be popular simply because of its catchy musical numbers (which I’ll admit is great), but the foundation of a good movie is its “story”. And Frozen’s story was too messy for me to really be engaged in it. Tangled had an engaging story throughout the movie. It kept me interested. While Frozen failed in that aspect story wise and left so many things unanswered. For me Tangled should win. Tangled also had way better animation. You would think Frozen being after Tangled that the animation would improve. Instead, all we get is stiff hair and stiff facial expressions.

          What would be nice is if we had a movie that combined BOTH good musical numbers and a strong engaging story. I haven’t really seen this since Disney’s Renaissance days.

          • TEAMFROZEN

            YEAH!!! Gooo tangled! Some of the scenes in Frozen don’t really make sense. For example, the scene where elsa makes the marshmallow dude. She does not want to hurt Anna but she makes this snow monster that could have killed Anna and Kristoff. But then again, it’s just a kids movie.

          • Jack t

            WHY AM I SCREAMING

          • Ella

            Random comment, but this article is like one of those Tumblr posts that just disappears for a while and then gets like 9000 notes in a day…

          • Jack t

            Oh and by the way, ‘I must be cruel only to be kind.’
            Elsa knows that she herself is the greatest danger to Anna, her powers are absolutely beautiful yes, but dangerous, especially since she has little control over them. She only uses Marshmellow to scare Kristoff and Anna far away, so they can run from her- Elsa herself thinks SHE is the danger to her sister. It’s so tragic and sad but it makes the whole story amazing.

          • Jeremiah Bok

            I was always under the impression she still didn’t have full control over her power and the snowman just happened. She wanted to do something to scare them off but wasn’t sure what. After all, she just accidentally made a bunch of her ice-spikes moments before so it’s pretty clear her magic wasn’t in hand.

          • Magenta White

            Frozen had a MUCH smaller budget than Tangled and less time for production.

            Tangled: $260,000,000, 6 years
            Frozen: $150,000,000, 3 years

            It also doesn’t exactly help that production was changed halfway in Frozen and it’s one of the director’s first time directing.

          • Raygirl

            Yes…it showed. Even in the lyrics for the movie. Everything felt rushed for a last minute release. Disney was more than likely afraid this movie would be a flop and didn’t bother to put too much into it. And yes they made last minute changes to the movie as well (which I hear bits of the old schematic will be in the Disney movie Into the Woods). Surprisingly, Frozen ended up being the best selling animated movie of all time and exceeding the budget limit for Disney. Its a smart marketing move. Put little money into the film, and instead put more on advertisement so they can make more from the movie than what they gave.

          • Magenta White

            The lyrics for the movie you say? Didn’t you just mention that the only reason people like Frozen is for the music? Now it’s rushed, too?

          • Raygirl

            Yes, PEOPLE liked it for its catchy songs…not me.
            I didn’t say that the lyrics were well done. I admitted that some of the songs were good particularly, only two of the songs caught my PERSONAL interest both lyrically and musically and that was Let it Go (which was written before the final product) and Do you want to build a Snowman (which didn’t fit with the scene in the movie where their parents die, but still had good composition). But the other songs, which I have said before, are catchy but not well written nor do they have hardly any meaning to the main story.

          • Magenta White

            Why doesn’t “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” fit with the film? It was meant to show the distance between the sister become larger. When the parents died, Elsa was truly alone and Anna didn’t know what to do during the tragedy.

          • Raygirl

            I meant that Do you Want to Build a Snowman doesn’t fit with the movie scene at the time. If you were one of the ones that listened to the soundtrack of Frozen before you watched the movie, you would have never known that throughout the scene of Do you Want to Build a Snowman that Elsa was struggling with her powers nor would you have known that throughout that scene, their parents died. This is what I mean by the song did not fit with the scene of the movie. It felt misplaced. But, hey, it was still probably the most well written song in this movie.

          • Magenta White

            Why should the song tell you everything that’s going on? I could say that about a lot of other Disney films if there weren’t the visuals. First rule of filmmaking: “Show, don’t tell.”

          • Raygirl

            Well, not everyone can see, as I’ve stated before. There are children who are blind, you know. lol
            To add, Do you want to Build a Snowman felt shallow because it didn’t seem to express anything about the story’s events at that time. Many of the songs in Frozen didn’t seem to have real meaning to the story. They felt like they were just made to be “catchy”.
            Again that may be fine for some people. But like I’ve said I like a good story and when I watch a musical, I like when creators tell the stories’ events through song. In this movie they just had songs just to have them, with no intention of telling the story of Frozen through the songs. I don’t like meaningless music for no reason. I like a musical that intricately tells the story’s events or conveys the events that are about to take place through song. The songs feel more useful to the plot, rather than annoyingly placed just to have a song there. And the fact that Frozen has nine songs taking up half of the story’s development time, it shows that the developers didn’t honestly care that much about the story, or whether the songs fit each telling event. Possibly, because they were set on making this movie into a Broadway play so that they could make more money. They wanted the songs to catch on, and I’ll admit, they succeeded at that. And ironically, right after its release, they announced it would be on Broadway…

          • Magenta White

            That depends. Most of “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” is told from the view of a child trying to connect with their sibling. So if that part sounds a little more “out of the story” then it makes sense. Only at the end when Anna and Elsa are teenagers and the parents die, does “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” go a little more into the actual events, possibly because the seriousness of the situation and that Anna did age during the song (mostly physically, though, since she still acts goofy).

          • Raygirl

            When I listened to the song for the first time, I heard it before I watched the actual movie. If you watch the movie the scenes tell you everything…but think about it from the point of view from a person that has only heard the soundtrack. How well does the Do You Want to Build a Snowman tell the story? When listening to this song what can be heard is there was a child who strongly wanted to make a snowman lyrically. She seemed bored and wanting to play with someone. What wasn’t conveyed in the song is the fact that Elsa was struggling with her powers secretly, nor that Anna was trying to connect with her sister.
            Also, the song doesn’t seem clear as to whether Anna is sad at the end of the song because her sister won’t build a snowman with her or whether she’s sad because their parents died. In fact, the song does not say that their parents died. So if you were a person listening to this song, (without watching the movie, mind you) what you would hear is a little girl who really wants to build a snowman with her sister…nothing else. It doesn’t convey Anna’s feeling of simply wanting to connect with her sister. It is a song that seems to simply show a girl who is bored and is pestering her older sister to build a snowman with her. This is what I mean by the song not really conveying the event of the story. Its a cute little song; very catchy. But when I finally watched the movie, I felt the song was very misplaced and didn’t convey what was taking place at all.
            The only songs throughout the entire movie that fit with the story and events was For the First Time in Forever and Let it Go. While the other songs fit their respective scenes, they didn’t quite tie in with the story. So all the songs just felt shallow and misplaced, and got really annoying as they randomly popped up for no reason. They felt made to be “catchy numbers” but not really to tell the story. And seeing that they had so many songs in this movie, apparently the producers didn’t care to give time to the story development anyway.

          • Magenta White

            Please stop mentioning the other songs. This is about “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” I already know how much is feel the other songs were used (I still disagree, but you have your opinion), so quit repeating it or rubbing it in.

            No, Anna doesn’t directly mention that the parents died, but after some sad music, Anna mentions, “We only have each other. It’s just you and me.” This implies that something bad happened to leave them alone. Besides, I don’t know why you would want them to dumb down the lyrics so they can be told everything going on instead of being shown what’s going so young audiences can figure it out for themselves. Many Pixar films do this too. For instance, I just listened to the score or background music of Up, I probably wouldn’t be able to understand the life of Carl Fredricksen and his wife or figure out that Carl Fredricksen was looking at his wife’s album later on.

            There being blind children in the world is a pretty lame excuse. To see films, many just listen to the story, or acquire special headsets that give descriptions of what is going on.

          • Raygirl

            Slow your role, sister. Nobody is rubbing it in. I don’t know about you, but I use comparisons to make the point clearer. If you don’t like it, don’t read my comments. Pixar is not a musical. Pixar has theme music, but that is something entirely different. So they put more emphasis on visual content. Musicals are supposed to be special in the fact that the music serves as a means to tell and express the events of the story of a movie/play. I’m not as big of a fan of Pixar as I am Disney’s originals. I do like many of Disney/Pixar movies because of their stories, at least I can say that much. Dumb down the lyrics? While “Do you want to build a Snowman” is the best written on the Frozen score, it is definitely more of the downgrade compared to Disney’s formal musical composition. Why don’t you look up former Disney lyrics and compare them to Frozen for yourself? Frozen is an insult compared to Disney’s former works.
            While Frozen was a musical, the developers did not make an effort to tie the movie in with the events or even the story of the movie. Anna says they are a lone, but then soon after she asks “do you want to build a snowman?” This kind of throws off the feeling and understanding of the events taking place.
            Frozen was nothing more than a movie with a bunch of catchy tunes, with no real meaning to the story in my opinion. To add, most of the songs are lyrically awful, with randomly placed phrases.

          • Magenta White

            No, I’m serious about the blind children. Some occasionally use headsets for more detailed descriptions. If you’ve actually worked with blind children, good for you.

            My point from Up was that there doesn’t need to be super descriptive lyrics or words to tell you what’s going on. Sure, it’s not a musical, but that sequence with Carl Fredricksen and his wife was the closest thing I could think of that was similar to “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” that showed time passing by between two characters with music played in the background. Nobody said anything during that sequence in Up, so I don’t see why the lyrics have to be more descriptive to the story in “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?”

            Anyway, “Let It Go” became popular because of the “empowerment” I suppose and the message of not being afraid to show your true self. But “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” may be the second most popular song, but it’s still from the point-of-view of a little kid (mostly). If you were looking for more intelligent lyrics that told you everything going on in the plot, this might not be the one for you. Also in the movie, during those gaps between where Anna sings in “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” there are speaking parts from Elsa’s point of view that do contribute to most of the story. Then again, in the actual soundtrack, the speaking parts are cut out, so I’ll give you that.

          • Raygirl

            The Let it Go song was more powerful because of the way the song was expressed. If the song was simply “I’m here. And so sad” it wouldn’t have made the impact that it did. Let it Go is a true musical song; it was the most descriptive and captivating of Elsa’s emotions. “Do you Want to Build a Snowman” is the catchiest and one of the best written, however, not timely with the scene. I don’t expect it to have fancy words, hence why I do believe it is the best written song…but I did hope the song would convey the events taking place at that time. There were many songs done by children from Disney before and many other companies who did animated musicals, and yet they still managed to connect the song with the scene of the movie.
            Again, what makes musicals special compared to other movies like “Up” is that musicals are supposed to have songs that tell the story lyrically. And may I say again that Pixar is known for putting more emphasis on visual content (because they are one of the early CGI companies) which is what I don’t like about them. Sadly, Frozen is also putting emphasis on its visual content. So this is why the lyrics are simply there to be catchy but not really conveying anything that has to do with the story. And yet, while the songs in the movie “Up” don’t have words, even aside from that part where its nothing but music, it is a scripted story overall. Half of the Frozen movie IS music, so without the songs conveying the details lyrically, we really don’t get a clear understanding of the story nor do we get an understanding of how the songs fit into all of this.
            Frozen missed the mark of what makes a musical unique because all it did was slap music in the movie without regard to how well it fit or told the story. And while some people don’t care that the music does not quite tell the story of Frozen (except For the First Time in Forever and Let it Go), I personally like a good story and music that compliments storytelling, and Frozen disappointed in the fact that it didn’t do either one.
            A headset for the blind helps them LISTEN clearly but not necessarily UNDERSTAND what is going on. This is why I said its important that movies and music have detailed lyrics and dialogue.

          • Angharad

            Frozen is a dumbed down movie in general…

          • Magenta White

            That’s your opinion, and I respect it.

          • Angharad

            Yes…but Frozen was supposed to be a musical…A Disney one no less. Huncheback of Notre Dame was a masterpiece – the only thing they did wrong were those ANNOYING talking statues and only some bits were cheesy. That’s it. Otherwise, pretty amazing.

          • Magenta White

            The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a good film, but what does that have to do with anything? Frozen used visuals along with music for several parts. I can’t imagine “Let It Go” without the formation of Elsa’s ice palace.

          • Elizabeth Huitz

            Love is an open door?? Think that one works. Plus i love it 🙂

          • Alyssa

            Okay, so I know this discussion was from a really long time, but I just read a few of your comments.

            Music is subjective, so if you don’t like it, that’s fine. However, I don’t think “Do You Want to Build a Snowman” is exactly a good target for the “music not fitting with the scene.” It is told by Anna as a child, after all, and meant to sound like what a child would say. I don’t think it’s perfect since some of the lyrics could have been told from Elsa (although there are several scenes showing her conflict). Also keep in mind that for the times when Anna was a kid, she did sound bored, but that was intentional. She at first asked Elsa to have fun, but after their parents died, she begged her to come because they only had each other. The teenager Anna doesn’t start with the words “Do You Want to Build a Snowman” as when she was a kid anymore.

            I know absolutely nothing about blind children and what they need, but that is somewhat unfair to those who worked on Frozen. It’s no one’s fault in my opinion (like, during production I don’t think they thought of how the blind will react to the film).

            As for Tangled, I think the songs are pretty decent and have better timing, but I don’t exactly praise “I’ve Got a Dream” since the thugs are minor characters and Rapunzel and Eugene’s dreams were already established. “When Will My Life Begin” also portrays Rapunzel with many characteristics uneccessary to the plot (ballet, chess, pottery, dressmaking, etc.) even if it serves as addressing Rapunzel’s main conflict.

            Now like I said, an opinion is an opinion and I’m not really trying to change yours. Just trying to put more things from a different standpoint.

          • Eugene Tangled

            Yes.Tangled takes a long time and much cost because of the conflict in production. Just open Wikipedia about Tangled and you can know what it is.


      TANGKED IS MUCH BETTER you read that TANGLED IS MUCH BETTER do you want me to repeat TANGLED IS MUCH BETTER!!!!!

  • B

    Tangled has such snappy, smart dialogue, well developed characters, and such pureness of heart, I cannot help but love it a little bit more than Frozen. (which I love a lot!!!)

  • Jeff

    Hm. I felt Tangled could’ve been better, and I also feel the same toward Frozen, but much less so. Overall, Tangled is somewhat average to me while Frozen is good bordering great.

    Tangled either has too many missed opportunities, or the issues it brings up doesn’t seem to matter at all within the scope of the entire film. To start, does Mother Gothel care about Rapunzel and not just her hair? That hardly seems to be the case in the film since Gothel had no qualms about quickly turning on Rapunzel toward the end. It was reasonable for Rapunzel to be angry for being lied to pretty much her entire life, but if Gothel did care a bit about her, she would’ve tried to reason with her, or at least considered it. I’m actually surprised that she pretty much raised Rapunzel as a daughter and didn’t become emotionally attached in any way, then again Gothel has lived for a few centuries and would have to break ties with other people she knows, but I digress. The mother daughter relationship really could’ve been played with, but it wasn’t. It’s simply Gothel pretends to love Rapunzel, but Rapunzel loves Gothel and Gothel loves her back. What if Gothel really did love and care about Rapunzel? What if Rapunzel would have to choose between Gothel, who isn’t her biological mother but is a mother emotionally, and her real parents, who she barely knows, and the real parents also barely know their own daughter. That could’ve made for some good and emotional storytelling. Sure that may be an easy path to attempt and maybe to resolve, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done well.

    Then there’s an implication of Gothel’s emotional abuse on Rapunzel. It wouldn’t be unreasonable, but it only shows when Rapunzel is with Gothel. Otherwise, Rapunzel apparently has no trouble with the outside world at all. She does at first when she leaves the tower, but that’s it. Nothing else after that. She greatly enjoys life outside her tower and even gets around much better than Flynn actually. Just look at the Snuggly Duckling scene or her scene with Maximus. Any kind of possible emotional damage that Gothel inflicted on Rapunzel doesn’t matter because it doesn’t add to the story. She’s very happy most of the time and shows no uncertainty about anything unless Gothel was involved such as the scene where Flynn seems to have betrayed her. Again, the “emotional abuse” only matters with Gothel is around. If the abuse actually mattered, the film would’ve dealt with it outside of those scenes.

    I also found Rapunzel to be rather dull. The only thing I know about her is that she’s nice, and so are a bunch of other characters in any story. There seems to be attempts to round out her character such as the showing skills she has in the first song of the film, but those skills don’t even matter within the film or add to the character. They don’t help her throughout her journey. Again, if she didn’t have those skills at all, the movie wouldn’t change. There is one rather clever scene about her artistic skills when Gothel tries to trick Rapunzel into thinking that the lanterns were stars, but Rapunzel has been painting and charting stars and believing that Gothel is wrong. Too bad there couldn’t have been more after that. Rapunzel simply could’ve been interested because she stayed in the tower for her entire life and is bored of it. And what about Rapunzel choosing to stay in or out of the tower? She struggled with that a bit during the campfire scene, but that’s it. She doesn’t get to make a tough decision. The closest to that is when she thinks that Flynn betrayed her, but Gothel manipulated that scene, and Rapunzel’s judgment gets tipped. Also, in the beginning of the film, I liked how Rapunzel communicated her thoughts and feelings to the view through Pascal. She tells him that she likes staying inside, and she discusses with him how she was going to convince Gothel to let her leave the tower. Too bad Pascal doesn’t do anything important once he and Rapunzel are out of the tower. She could’ve confided with him about Flynn’s trustworthiness, something else the film brought up. When Gothel caught up with Rapunzel at the campfire (btw, in that scene, Gothel still doesn’t seem to care about Rapunzel outside of her hair. Gothel isn’t very subtle either, saying that she “followed the sound of utter betrayal”), she threw the satchel to Rapunzel and challenges her to see if Flynn even cares about her or cares more about the tiara in the satchel. Rapunzel is uncertain only in the very beginning, and there is no follow-up after that, which is the sequence “Kingdom Dance” and is on youtube. It doesn’t show any signs of Rapunzel making sure Flynn isn’t up to something.

    According to some, Flynn seems to have issues with his own identity since he didn’t like his real name “Eugene” and named himself after a fictional character. The problem is that it’s only brought up during that campfire scene. If that were cut out, the movie would still be exactly the same. He doesn’t show any issue with his own identity at all for the rest of the movie. Aladdin in his movie had issues with himself. Tangled doesn’t need to do it like Aladdin did, but what is given is too little. Maybe Rapunzel liking the name “Eugene” better could be something, but she lived a very sheltered life, so she wouldn’t have the same reaction as another person who was raised a bit more normally. Basically, his name could’ve just stayed as “Flynn Rider”, and the movie wouldn’t change in any significant way.

    Now for Frozen, I would’ve like more focus on Elsa and her inner turmoil. There was some already in the movie, but she doesn’t get as much focus as she deserves, especially during the parts when she flees Arendelle. It was already clear that she struggled to live with her powers for most of her life, but I would’ve liked to see her looking back at her life during her stay in the ice castle.

    The trolls could’ve had more of a role in the movie. They do some important things such as healing Anna and telling her that an act of true love will thaw a frozen heart, but that seems too little to me. I think those could’ve happened without the use of the trolls. But that doesn’t take away much from the film for me.

    I do like that Olaf represented the love between the sisters, and I thought him defining true love to Anna was appropriate and helped in that regard, especially since Elsa created him and was acting out of true love for a long time by keeping a distance from Anna to keep her safe. I’ve also read some comments that Anna should’ve gotten her memories back too learn how much Elsa had to go through for most of her life and find out that her sister has been acting out of true love for so long while Anna only does so at the end of the movie, and Olaf was the key to getting those memories back. I can see where they’re coming from, but I’m not sure Anna regaining her memories would make the movie better. In some weird way, Anna’s sacrifice would then only look like she’s repaying a debt. Using her life to do so is a huge cost, and it would be appropriate for Anna to help her sister after Elsa has been trying to help Anna. I know that simply repaying a debt would never be the intention of the filmmakers or Anna and would never be treated as such, but I can’t stop seeing that. The reason Anna’s protection works so well for me is because she did that only out of love and nothing else.

    If I had to compare the songs for both, Frozen wins by more than a light-year. I don’t care for any of the songs in Tangled, not even “I See The Light” though the visuals in that scene was very great. Frozen’s songs range from good to great. A few may not be perfect, but I still enjoy them even with their flaws. For example, “In Summer” isn’t needed in the film, but it was still fun. “Fixer Upper” is an important song since the trolls sing about the effects and importance of true love, but it’s misplaced.

    • WOW Jeff, thanks for that incredibly detailed comment! It was great to read! 🙂 And great points too! (I totally agree that the trolls in Frozen were kind of underused).

      • Jeff

        Thanks, Gary! I’m somewhat surprised at how much I typed. Typing it and making sure I wanted to cover everything I wanted to took more than a while. I hope it isn’t too long for others, and I hope it also makes sense to them, too!

        And there’s a bit more I’d like to add about Mother Gothel since I just thought of it now. I think she could’ve been a villain at first, but when Rapunzel is gone, she obviously wants to find her. At first it’d be just for her hair, but Gothel slowly learns and realizes how much she cares about Rapunzel, and how much Rapunzel means to her. She could’ve been proud of having such beautiful, healthy, and talented daughter (a way to make her artistic skills matter), and also proud of herself for having the opportunity to raise one. And then Gothel turns around at the end of course. Heck, Rapunzel, her real parents, and Gothel probably could’ve live together as a new family at the end.

        But now that I think about it, Rapunzel might need to get her hair cut since that happened in the original fairy tale, and that would end Gothel’s life. But if the filmmakers are smart, they’d be able to come up with a to work with it, or maybe a hair cut might just end up being unnecessary.

        Looking back, I think I kicked at Tangled too much. I don’t hate it, but I don’t quite like it as much as I would’ve liked. So, I’ll list some things I did like. For starters, Maximus is downright hilarious, especially when he and Flynn are together. My favorite scene in the movie is how childish both act when the group is starting to explore the kingdom. As for any Disney film, the visuals and animation are fantastic (so this extends to Frozen as well).
        Even with my criticism Flynn, I still think he was done well. He’s that typical character who only cares about himself at first, but after getting to know, spending a lot of time, and bonding with someone else, he grows to care about that other person too, but it still managed to work. For example, I liked his reaction to seeing Rapunzel with braided hair, and his reaction to seeing her starting to dance in that “Kingdom Dance” sequence.
        The expressions of Rapunzel’s parents has been stated often, but I also thought it was done well. They have no dialogue, but they still manage to communicate a lot.

    • Really good, in depth post! I want to disagree on one spot in particular:

      “The problem is that it’s only brought up during that campfire scene. If
      that were cut out, the movie would still be exactly the same.”

      I totally, totally disagree here. Flynn sharing his past and his abandoning of his name is a deeply emotional opening to Rapunzel and makes all the difference in the world for the rest of the film. It is exactly small things like this that connect people on a deeply emotional level. Without this insight, Flynn would have kept up a very large wall from Rapunzel, and this incident is one of the key moments that makes their eventual romance not feel forced (like the romance in some other films, Princess and the Frog jumps immediately to mind).

      As far as the Gothel betrayal/lack of caring about Rapunzel, I’m sure she sees the girl as less of a person and more of an object. To her, Rapunzel is the flower in human form, which I imagine is extremely annoying to her because the flower didn’t ask questions or need fed or anything. So in my eyes Gothel actually resents Rapunzel, as before (when it was just the flower) she didn’t need to put up any act or really TRY, and now, for the past 18 years, she’s had to pander to this silly girl she wishes she didn’t have to put up with. To me that makes Gothel feel so much more a villain than if she actually cared for Rapunzel.

      To me that’s another big plus for Tangled over Frozen. The villain was a villain, instead of “Oh! Surprise! This good character was bad all along.” While I agree she could have had more depth, I don’t think the story was ABOUT her, and I think that’s a good thing in this case. This isn’t Gothel’s tale, this is strictly Rapunzel’s. It’s about Rapunzel loving this monster who didn’t care a shred for her, which is why I think she succeeded in the real world as you mentioned above. Flynn had reason to distrust everyone, Rapunzel really didn’t. The only example of anyone she’s had is her fake-mother and her fake mother is a horrible, evil monster. So who else that she meets could seem that bad?

      As far as the trolls in Frozen, I felt like they were completely unnecessary and I didn’t like their inclusion at all. They were extraordinarily underdeveloped (for good reason, they ALREADY tried to put too much into such a short film) and felt to me like something someone had an idea for and it got the greenlight because “Oh, that would be fun to do.” That’s just my opinion of course. 🙂

      • Jeff

        Good points!

        And I agree with you on Flynn, but I don’t think my post was worded well enough. I do see that him opening up to Rapunzel is supposed to be the start of his change over the film. The problem I have is that Flynn seems to imply problems with himself, but those “problems” don’t really mean anything after. I think he could’ve instead told Rapunzel that he didn’t grow up with much and values having a lot of money because of that, and that still would’ve worked in the film (of course he does later find something else to value instead). I don’t know if this makes sense or not. I also posted a bit more on Flynn in another post a little below this one, so I hope that also helps makes sense of things.

        On Gothel, I also think that she only saw Rapunzel as a tool, and it’s also reasonable for Gothel to be annoyed with having to spend a lot of time and effort to maintain the key to her eternal youth/beauty. I also expanded a bit on her character in that same post below this one. In short, she could’ve started out as a villain, but she slowly changes after finding out that she actually does care about Rapunzel. Basically, it’s that saying, “You never knew what you had until it’s gone”, and Gothel didn’t just lose the key to her immortality – she also lost a loving daughter. You are right about the film not being about Gothel, so there didn’t need to be more depth. Actually, I don’t think all Disney villains are deep, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing since, of course, the films are never about them. In the case of Tangled, I think giving Gothel a character arc could’ve added a bit more taste to the movie. Probably not necessary, but I think it still could’ve worked if done well.

        On a villain twist, I’m actually mixed about Hans. I do like that the prince who seems to care about Anna in actuality only cares about himself. But I keep wondering if there should’ve been foreshadowing or if there was even enough of it. More foreshadowing would’ve made the twist seem more reasonable, but at the same time if there’s too much, then the point of the twist is ruined.

        • Totally agree on all points. You bring up a stellar bit of trivia there as well about Disney villains. I had never really thought about that! How interesting would it be to have one that really grew and changed? Would really make quite a film, I bet. Maybe one day (or else we’ll just have to make that animated film)!

          I often wonder why there was zero foreshadowing with Hans. Like, what reason did they have to avoid it? Did they really think it would be a better film with a giant turnaround at the end that no one could possibly expect? Seems very odd to me. The slightest hints would have made the whole film better, because it wouldn’t have been completely and utterly out of left field. I know some folks say they saw it coming, but for the life of me I can’t understand how and I never seem to find an answer to that question of how!

      • Lithia

        Good points. Yeah, I kind of agree on the trolls, but it wasn’t so for me personally. All they were to really do was to tell Anna that her frozen heart would kill her. So, maybe just one troll would have been nice.

        • Lithia

          Out of curiosity, what purpose do you think the thugs in Tangled had? I mean, they were more developed than the trolls in terms of having personality (wishing for dreams), but outside of helping Flynn Rider/Eugene in the climax, what did they do?

          • Raygirl

            They actually helped. The trolls were useless. They just rolled around. At least the thugs helped Flynn and Rapunzel escape. They also helped to broaden Rapunzel’s mind about “thugs”. Her mother always scared Rapunzel from the world, making her think thugs were out to get her and that the world was scary and dangerous and that Rapunzel could not handle herself. But this scene showed that even these burly men had dreams outside of their rugged life. Rapunzel began to see that the world was not exactly like her “mother” had told her.

            The trolls served no purpose to Anna. None. They could have served a greater purpose than they did…but they didn’t.

          • Magenta White

            I thought that the thugs were pretty pointless because I still think that thwy were just the characters to give the others a directions. To each their own.

    • AegysLTS

      Love it Jeff! Thank you for shedding new light about Anna and Elsa! I am glad too that Anna saved Elsa out of true love, not after some well thought out analysis of what ifs, the scene where she has to choose between Kristoff(saving herself) or Elsa in a split second is hands down an act of true love.

      I remember reading an interview with Jennifer Lee about their choice of deleting a scene of the “Lifes too short(reprise)”, when Elsa was in her dungeon and Anna freezing after Hans’ betrayal, it was a song where they both reflect back on their past decision and deep thoughts…..and I’m glad it was deleted coz it would have make it painfully obvious that Anna will have to save Elsa for an ‘act’ of true love……

    • Raygirl

      The problem I felt is that the true love save was random considering there was hardly any connection between the sisters. It just felt like feminist agenda pushing material rather than creative story telling. Frozen’s movie didn’t quite feel like it had much of a story. either that or they were stuffing way to much in one movie to the point the story plot was messy. It got lost and stopped being engaging after the Let it Go sequence. At least in Tangled the story remained engaging throughout the movie and had a consistent goal. I felt Frozen was just simply about musical numbers, considering a song popped up every five seconds it could chance it. And that’s okay for some people; but I’m a person who likes to watch a creative and well thought out story. Throwing in elements that are dark does not mean that the story of Frozen is well done. Rather the dark elements went nowhere because the story was all over the place. Frozen COULD have been a deep story about two sisters, but instead the movie was not clear as to what kind of story it wanted to be. Its “selling” point was that it was about sisters, yet the entire movie focuses on the romance of Kristoff and Anna, hardly focusing on the relationship between Anna and Elsa. And even though Elsa was a great character, no effort was put into evolving her and putting her to use in the story other than sitting in a castle. It was a waste of a good character in my opinion. To add, the action was lacking in this movie. there was a lot of magic, but hardly any action, or short lived action sequences. That’s what made the movie even less engaging for me. There were no tense moments; no high anticipation throughout the movie. There was a twist, but Hans was hardly a threat for anticipation.
      It was obvious that Disney was simply trying to sell merchandise through “two” princesses instead of one. I mean come on, think how much money two princesses can make verses just one? After all Disney has become obsessed with the promotion of their Princess line…lol

      The only thing I think Tangled failed in was its musical numbers. The songs were not memorable, even though they were better written than the Frozen songs lyrically. Particularly “For the First Time in Forever” was not written well lyrically…for example in the song “For the First Time in Forever” one verse goes like this: “I don’t know if I’m elated or gassy or somewhere in that zone, but at least I won’t be a lone..” Yeah, its obvious that the lyrics were not written with careful thought. Tangled had better lyrical combinations. However, Tangled’s movie was not as emotionally engaging as Frozen’s musical numbers. Frozen had songs that led up to dramatic choruses. A good chorus makes a good song in most cases. Tangled didn’t have any special choruses, just standard songs with moderate tempo.

      What I hope is that Tangled’s fantastic story combination will mix with Frozen’s musical prowess…than we’d truly have movies that can compete with Disney’s finest in the Renaissance era. There hasn’t been this set up since Mulan.

      • Magenta White

        I though that Tangled’s goal was pretty weak. If Rapunzle didn’t reach the floating lanterns, nothing TERRIBLE would happen in my opinion. There weren’t many stakes or real consequences, in my opinion.

        • Raygirl

          The story surrounding that goal was a focused one. Every story needs a goal. At least Tangled had one. Sure, Tangled can’t compare to Disney’s Renaissance. But at least there was a goal. And the lanterns proved to mean more to Rapunzel than just lights. They lead her to discover more about her existence, her parents, and her kidnapping. No real consequences? How about a crazy woman trying to kill you if you don’t obey or the risk of someone discovering your powers and taking advantage of you? There were many things at stake for leaving the tower. But she did what she had to do. And in the end she discovered the truth. That’s what I call engaging. Throughout the movie I kept wondering, will she discover the truth? What’s going to happen when her fake mother catches up to her? Whats going to happen AFTER Rapunzel discovers the truth? And what about Flynn? Will Rapunzel discover that Flynn is a good person and that her fake mother is a liar? And in the end all my questions were resolved.
          Throughout Frozen I kept thinking when will Anna find Elsa and how? Will the trolls tell Anna about Elsa’s powers? Will Elsa discover more about her powers? Will Elsa and Anna rekindle their relationship? And how does Kristoff, the boy in the beginning of the movie, fit into all of this? Of all these questions, only ONE of them were resolved: Anna finds Elsa, but is tossed out by a giant monster who only proves scary for a split second of the movie. After that, the story stopped being engaging. The trolls do nothing to contribute to the movie, we learn absolutely nothing about Kristoff (who is supposed to the main male protagonist, and Elsa discovers nothing about her powers except that an act of love unfreezes stuff, which was kind of random considering their bond was stretched and the movie does absolutely nothing to show them rekindle the love the had for each other. Just a random act from a sister so that they can push a feminist agenda that “women can save women instead of men”. Unfortunately it was a failed attempt of feminism: just because the damsel in distress is saved by a woman does not mean she’s any less a damsel in distress. Not to mention throughout the whole movie Anna is getting some sort of help from Kristoff.

          Which is also what I hated: that people think this movie promotes feminism. While it passes the bechdel test, in the original story only WOMEN helped Anna. In fact, Kristoff was the damsel in distress in the original tale. Why didn’t the modern Disney producers take advantage of this like Walt Disney was going to do? In this movie it continues the whole traditional scheme of “man helping woman”, and cleverly disguises this theme behind glitter and music. What a waste of a movie.

          • Magenta White

            I didn’t mention Frozen, so I have no idea why you bother mentioning it, but since you are, Kristoff was based off of the little robber girl. Elsa was based off of both the Snow Queen character and Kai, so it’s in a way a woman saving another woman. Might I also add the Kristoff is the tritagonist, and doesn’t in general and in general doesn’t have as big of a role in the film as Anna or Elsa, so I kind of expected to know more about the leading ladies and less about him. Kristoff isn’t a match for other Disney male leads (like Flynn Rider) because of this.

            Mother Gothel never really revealed her murderous feelings towards Rapunzel, until she discovered who she really was (totally out of nowhere, and how Rapunzel had a vision of her parents as a newborn beats me). Rapunzel didn’t seem to really understand what danger she might be in, so from her point of view, it’s not exactly what I would call a consequence. I just think that Rapunzel’s “inner journey” is a little hollow because Mother Gothel was stupid to give Rapunzel the same birthday as her actual one, and the situation could have been easily fixed if Rapunzel just took a boat. After all, nobody in the kingdom not even the guards, recognized Rapunzel as the “Lost Princess” even though she strongly resembled the baby.

            It was pretty obvious at at beginning that trolls weren’t going to tell Anna about Elsa’ power because THEY suggested it in the first place.

          • Raygirl

            The article is about Tangled vs Frozen. Even if you didn’t mention Frozen, your comment is pretty obvious that you are against Tangled and Pro Frozen. yes, I am aware who Kristoff was supposed to be.

            And no Kristoff is not a woman. Disney made sure to change that because Disney is known for cleverly and deceitfully keeping many traditionally acceptable ideas in their movies, which includes having a male save a woman as usual.

            The fact is they have Kristoff sitting here in the story for no reason. He was a useless character. they could have at least stood to develop him or give him likeability. Even the Genie from the lamp tells us his story of how he wants to be free and for thousands of years was trapped and alone. We learn nothing about Kristoff, none of his feelings as a side kick character. He’s just there. Its obvious that Disney’s productions changed everything at the last minute because they ended up having characters flung all over the place. The original schematic that Walt Disney had in place was going to be absolutely different.

            My point is Rapunzel had many threats even if she was unaware and for US, (the ones watching the movie obviously) there was a lot of tension and anticipation when Rapunzel decided to leave that tower. It kept me guessing what will happen next the entire time? The fact that Rapunzel was unaware is what made it even more suspenseful; she didn’t know what was coming to her. Whereas in Frozen, I lost interest after Anna discovers Elsa. It didn’t leave me wondering what will happen next. Elsa was found and that was basically the end of the movie.

            They gave us no obvious indication that Kristoff was an Orphan. In many cultures of the past, parents did not have close relationships with children and everyone was expected to work, especially in harsher climates.

            You might be right about one thing. Elsa’s powers don’t have to explained for the plot…because there hardly is a plot to begin with. The story had no direction and was messy from the start. So, sure, of course adding relevant details about a major part of the story would be of no help….

          • Magenta White

            I know that Kristoff is not a woman. I meant Anna saving Elsa (or at least trying to). I’ll grant the trolls, but mention that they are supposed to reference Norwegian folklore.

            I’m not completely against Tangled. I’m not a fan of Rapunzel, Flynn Rider, or Mother Gothel, but I like Maximus and I do think that the story is tighter.

            If you don’t think that there is a plot, in Frozen, so be it. It was easy for me and most audiences to think that there is, so if you couldn’t, that’s fine, like how I don’t find Pocahontas to be as great as you put it.

          • Raygirl

            You say banana, I say banana. Whatever works for you. I’m just giving my opinion on it based off my personal analysis of the movie as it was from the start. I don’t think Frozen quite had a story in my opinion. I had the privilege of testing out my analysis by cutting out the music of Frozen while I watched it. (I do this with every Disney movie). Not surprisingly there was no plot goal and the story was messy, as if this movie wanted to be a thousand different other things. Everything in this movie was random. All the way to the end. The only part I liked was when Hans turned out evil, and after that he was no threat. Just a guy.

          • Magenta White

            I still think that the music is an integral part to the majority of the storytelling, so if you don’t, fine. But considering that there are nine songs, and most of them play back-to-back in the first third, that’s most of the story right there, gone if you skip them. At least we can kind of agree on Hans.

          • Raygirl

            Which part of Hans the part where he suddenly became evil or the part where he does nothing after that?
            Yeah, that’s my point. The movie is held up by musical numbers (in which many of them are irrelevant to the plot, which is hardly had to begin with). All this movie had was shallow showtunes in my opinion with no real meaning to the movie. And that may be fine for some people. But again, I was hoping for some fantastic story telling. And it disappointed me that the developers did not attempt to explore this aspect of the movie. It had so much potential.

          • Magenta White

            To each their own. I just hope you’re not accusing me or most audiences of not knowing any good storytelling.

          • Raygirl

            Everyone has their own taste. I don’t believe this movie had an actual story to begin with, but my point is some people don’t care if a movie has a story (this is not an insult, just saying some people don’t care). This is why I said that may be okay for some people that Frozen doesn’t have a strong story, but for ME, I was looking for an engaging story and I was disappointed that Frozen did not deliver. And even if you felt it had a story, that is your opinion. I’m just stating based off my own personal observation. Everybody has their own perceptions of Frozen. And I’m okay with that….however, I do have the right to express my opinion on why I think this movie is lacking story depth and why I feel critics seem to ignore the story aspect because this is probably the most original movie to come in the last two years, when all we’ve had are sequels to carry the movies’ box office hits. Call me condescending if you please, but I have a right to an opinion.

          • Magenta White

            I suppose other people just think that Frozen has a strong story. Not everyone is going easy on it just because it’s a film for families. Some people genuinely think that the story is strong, but it’s okay to disagree.

          • Dusty Ayres
          • Dusty Ayres

            Heck, why didn’t Disney just adapt the original story like he was supposed to, and not worry about how Christian fundies or most Americans would see it?

            I suspect the only way we’ll all see an actual version of The Snow Queen is for a company like Studio Ghibli to adapt it-it sure as frack won’t come from any of the studios here in North America.

      • guest

        Saying Frozen has “Dreamworks-like humor” is rich when Tangled was far more blatant in their use of Dreamworks humor throughout the film. While the romance between Kristoff and Anna was emphasised in the film, saying that the “entire movie focused on their relationship” is incorrect when the sisterly relationship was also given adequate time to develop.

    • Fikri Noh

      I totally disagree about what you say about Rapunzel. It’s totally wrong.

  • Alissa Roy

    Ha, I’ve just been reading all of the comments and favoriting the ones that I agree with, but why not throw in my two cents? I prefer Tangled, although narrowly because Frozen is still a great movie. I just felt more connected to the characters, which is weird because I could probably relate more to Anna or Elsa than Rapunzel. Still, I felt that Tangled had a better plot. The plot in Frozen never bothered me, but upon rewatching I keep noticing all of these little flaws, which makes the AP Lit student inside of me cringe (I mean seriously, what is the deal with all of those little trolls? And it was pretty obvious that Hans was going to be the bad guy, there was classic foreshadowing and hinting throughout.) Plus, Flynn just beats out Kristoff any old day. In the end though, they are two fantastic movies. Kudos to Disney for creating two movies so great that they are sparking a 120+ comment-brawl!

    • AegysLTS

      Just curious, in what way do you see Hans becoming the bad guy? For me, I noticed that when locked Elsa up in the dungeon, he didn’t even bother to let her out despite her asking him to…

    • I agree with Aegys, I would love to know what foreshadowing you saw. I saw absolutely zero, which really bugged me about the film and that reveal.

      • Alissa Roy

        Maybe foreshadowing isn’t quite the right term… I guess I just thought of it as classic Disney/process of elimination. The moment you were introduced to Kristoff, you just kind of got the impression that Anna going to end up with him (since he is the classic Disney underdog like Aladdin who you just know will get the girl.) They tried to play this off with lots of distractions though, such as the song between Anna and Hans at the beginning. So I just kind of assumed that Hans was going to have to get the boot somewhere as Anna realizes that she is supposed to be with Kristoff, but how? I heard that there was going to be a villain in this film, and the villain was not Elsa (although I am not sure how many people knew that while going into the film) so just be process of elimination, I kind of determined that the best way to ditch Hans without Anna feeling bad for running off with another man would be for him to be the villain. I am not sure if that made any sense at all, but I hope that at least explained the way that I viewed the situation!

        • Aha, well that sheds a lot of light on it. Then yes, it wasn’t foreshadowing in the film, but what you brought from OUTSIDE the film that led to your piecing things together. You used, to borrow a term from role playing games, “out of character information.”

          I think what was rather devastating to me, also using out of character information, was that I became extremely excited through the film that it WASN’T neat and tidy as Disney usually is regarding these three characters. I began to anxiously anticipate the time when Anna would have to actually make a hard choice. Would she choose the man she rushed into a relationship with? Or the one she developed feelings for by actually getting to know? I was thrilled that Disney was finally going to dive into some big, real-life choices.

          Then the rug was pulled out from under me and the choice was stolen away from Anna by having Hans flip. Instead of getting to make a real-life choice, Anna had the choice made for her by the film makers tricking her AND the audience the whole time. And that left a very bad taste in my mouth, personally.

          Thanks for the response, I’m glad we got your perspective on why you saw the betrayal coming! I was pretty sure there was no foreshadowing, so it’s good to know that I didn’t miss something in the actual film. 🙂

          • AegysLTS

            Personally, I am so glad Kristoff did the right thing by bringing her back to Hans, I actually dreaded it could end up like Pocahontas 2 or Enchanted where the girl ran off with the other guy for no other reason that he was the better guy(seriously disney?). Anyway, I don’t think Anna falls for Kristoff though, while there is some awkward chemistry going on, she did tell Olaf that “I don’t even know what love is”…..just my 2 cents xD

        • Matthew Latham

          Yes! And you sort of want Anna to end up with Kristoff, after he is introduced.

  • I just voted for Tangled (shocker) and am amazed at what the polls are revealing. It’s almost a 3 way tie! That’s crazy!

    • Keyblademaster123

      I know lol. Pretty much Tangled and Frozen are equal in that regard. The name of the game now is personal preference. Obviously you’re choice is Tangled, but I bet you still love Frozen anyways.

      • That’s where I’m just weird…I don’t care for Frozen very much if at all to be honest. When I saw Tangled, I expected to be totally ‘blah’ about it, but somehow fell in LOVE with it. Probably because I loved their take on the design/lighting and the music. But somehow, I did not have a very positive reaction to Frozen. I’m strange. I know. lol.

        • Keyblademaster123

          That’s upsetting to hear. 🙁 Frozens a great movie and is on par with Tangled as well as with the great classics. It hurts to see people not like Frozen even though it’s a great movie.

        • Because Tangled is better. 😉 Ha ha, but in all seriousness I’d love to see this poll taken in another decade or so. We’re at the height of Frozen hype right here and now. Not enough time has passed for the film to totally sink in. I bet there would be quite a different result, but who knows.

          I imagine when Bambi or Dumbo came out if you put it up in a poll next to Snow White it would be a lot closer than it would be today.

          • Great point! Some movies age better than others, but then it becomes an issue of the Nostalgia factor. It’s just all subjective.

          • Keyblademaster123

            Film is completely subjective so in you’re opinion Tangled is better than Frozen. Honestly though, Tangled and Frozen are equal and are both on the same level as the great classics. Frozen is pretty much a classic and will be remembered for generations at this point.

            Besides comparing is stupid and pointless anyways when these two films are equal to each other. Plus they are equal to the other great classics anyways so why bother. Do we know if Frozen will be forgotten or have different results? No, but it’s already proving to be the Lion King all over again. Where people said that it won’t be remembered and the hype will make it die off. Look we’re it is now. Frozen is proving to have that same result and will do so since Frozen is equal to the great classics, Tangled, WIR, etc.

            Frozen will not have different results when the hype dies down because of what I said above. Heck if Disney already is doing stuff in their parks and are making a broadway show a couple years after the film, like the Lion King did, that proves it even further.

          • Film can be judged both subjectively and objectively. Rarely is anything “completely” one way or the other in life. 🙂

  • Team Frozen!

    • Keyblademaster123

      Woot to that movie and Tangled. Both are instant classics and are equal to the other greats. 😛

  • Bob Smith

    Wow, I’m surprised at how big this discussion got! Since both films are financial hits and are very enjoyable to many, how about I say that everybody wins?

    • Where’s the fun in that? 🙂

      • Bob Smith

        Admittedly, I’m too lazy to compare both films. 😛

        I was hoping that still wouldn’t be the case after a few days, but no luck it would seem.

  • Haley TheRadiant

    I can’t choose between them, well even though Frozen is my fave Disney flick, Tangled was the one that got me excited about Disney again in the first place

    • AegysLTS

      So glad that Disney finally got their mojo back 🙂

      There was a time when Disney was a long stream of disappointment, Bolt…Meet the robinson…mars need mom…Atlantis…treasure planet….

      May the marriage of Disney and Pixar brings joy to us all.

      • I adored Bolt personally. Not sure why so many people didn’t like it so much. It had the elements of a very well made film overall. I also liked Atlantis, but I at least get why that one wasn’t a huge fan favorite. It… had a lot of issues to be sure. Not to mention it was so different than most Disney films, so expectations were probably not met.

        Meet the Robinsons may have been the worst animated movie I’ve ever watched.

        • Bob Smith

          I liked Bolt quite a lot as well, and Treasure Planet wasn’t quite great, but I still enjoyed it. Atlantis wasn’t for me though. I didn’t mind that Disney wanted to try something new or different since variety is good, right? Unfortunately, I found the characters and action sequences to be dull.

          • Yeah, it didn’t go far enough I think. It also tried to pack SO MUCH into a short film, that’s very tough to do. If you’ve ever seen the Making Of stuff on the limited edition DVD or whatever, they cut a ton out of the film as it is. They wanted to do even more!

  • Anuththara Peiris

    i think Frozen is better because it’s feminist. You don’t need a man to save you as opposed to Tangled. And tangled was created from an already existing classic. The ending of Frozen was twisting and awesome! And it brings out love in a different way. Love does not only exist between a boy and a girl but also sisters. I think Frozen is a movie for ambitious girls. It deals with reality more than Tangled. The Oscar awards never lie. Frozen deserves that award more than tangled. You can’t compare Tangled with Frozen. Frozen fall in the category of movies like Brave and Pocahontas where fearless women exist. And of course the music of Frozen is wayyyy better.

    • Daisybelle

      Actually, in Tangled, it’s more like Rapunzel accidentally meets a man who goes with her on an adventure. Not really a man to save you, but I still agree with you. xD

  • AegysLTS

    This had nothing to do with the article but just for fun……

    US tourism to Norway soars on ‘Frozen effect’


  • Mason Smith

    *Scans comments section of this post*
    You guys are awesome for keeping the discussion respectful. Way to go!

  • India Wright

    I think Tangled was better. The animation was beautiful and it was well planned out and funny, as well as being emotional. I suppose I would think differently about Frozen had I watched the film before all the hype and fanfiction came about, but I just felt that it was very rushed. The ending was very dissatisfying compared to Tangled’s ending in which Rapunzel’s hair was cut off. Frozen had so much potential that it didn’t live up to and I really hope to see a sequel to it, because it really does have a lot more potential than Tangled (the short sequel to Tangled was awful). I do think that the songs in Frozen were far better than the songs in Tangled, however I just feel that Tangled was a better film overall. :3

  • natalie

    Tangled was more relatble and helped me but hearing it saved people from suicide really got me. Tangled means so much to me that when people hate on tangled they hate on me. I also really relate to Rapunzel .

  • Michael Young

    Agree mostly but would have to say that the animation is a tie, and I would give writing to “Frozen”.

    Winner to me: “Frozen”

  • Brier Rose

    Both! I mostly agree with the article about both films stong points and weaknesses: Tangled had a more polished story and overall look and Frozen had more relatible characters and more memorible music (aside from Tangled’s “I See the Light” which may well be the best Disney love song since their renaissance period). I absolutly love Frozen, but I do have to admit that there were a few things that I really would have loved to see that were missing: a reprise of Elsa singing “Do you want to build a snowman” when Anna is frozen; a love song with Anna, Kristoff, and Elsa during the time when Elsa’s in prison, Hans has left Anna to die, and Kristoff is heading back up the mountain (much like the “If Only” song from Little Mermaid on Broadway) and a strong, solid ending. I think these things really would have added even more to the story. So in the end, both films are beautiful and entertaining in their own way and are my two top favorite “modern” Disney princess movies 🙂

  • Kristina

    Tangled is still my favorite. I missed Glen Keane’s hand in the animation of Frozen. The eye animation was SO amazing in Tangled and everything was just pushed more. I feel like the animation in Frozen felt literally frozen at some points. And where things could have really been pushed dynamically it feels restrained, like in Elsa’s transformation. The story has some serious flaws and no true villain. Hans is just some cute guy who decides to be bad at the end of the movie. Mother Gothel is a true villain. I agree that the characters in Frozen are very relatable and I LOVE the music, but the animation and story I feel carry more weight than characters and music in this case. So while I totally geeked for Frozen when it came out I now think Tangled is the more classic Disney masterpiece.

  • Heather

    there both good

  • Heather

    i like frozen and tangled i cant pick so its both

  • Heather

    they both have great characters

  • Heather


  • Daisybelle

    I was just re-watching Tangled, wondering which movie was better which brought me to this post! I’ll have to say, this post is WONDERFULLY written. I think I like both movies equally, Tangled for it’s funny and sweet, wonderfully wrapped up story and lots of elements which stand out, and Frozen for it’s epic adventurous story, great characterization, and powerful music. Both movies are inspiring, epic and memorable.

    If I have to pick between these two movies: I will go with Tangled, only because it has taught me an important lesson and it feels more special and memorable to me for some reason. I feel like I relate to it, I guess it’s only my personal opinion. xD

    Also, has anyone forgot about Brave? Come on, it falls in the same category as these two!

  • Raymer Tan

    frozen minus “let it go” equals mediocre movie. heck, i just watched Rise of the Guardians, its a way way more powerful movie compared to lame frozen. you let kids watch frozen without the “let it go” song and see what happens.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, thank you for your cynical comment.

    • Jack t

      Ok, byeeeee 🙂

      • AegysLTS

        my exact reaction……

      • Jack t


      • Keyblademaster123

        Good one Jack. Lol that made my day since this guy is being cynical and is clearly wrong.

    • QueenElas1225

      Rise of the Guardians, yes was a great movie but did it empower little girls everywhere? no. And you can’t watch Frozen without Let it go Because then your brains all like “wtf, how the heck is there a palace there and where did Elsa get that dress!” And don’t just through lame in there because that’s improper grammar.

  • ThatKidTho Nope.

    Tangled. Tangled has a better storyline and a more understanding one. For example in frozen, THEY DON’T EVEN TELL US WHERE ELSA GOT HER POWERS!!

    • L.

      They specify that she was born with the powers… Saying that there must be a blatant reason for her being born with the powers is like saying that there has to be a blatant reason for me being the only one in my family with perfectly straight teeth- we don’t know where I got them from, but I have them…

    • QueenElas1225

      Yes, I agree with L , because you can’t judge a movie’s whole plot just because YOU overlooked something. And on a scale of real literary science, the plots are the exact same(tied) from a standpoint of actual digging and research, I have found that they would be both 7.5 out of ten.

  • Michael Young

    Without a doubt, I’d have to say “Frozen”. It just had a bigger impact on me, it’s the only movie I’ve ever gone to see more than twice in the cinema. That said, I did have two gripes with it:

    I. The Trolls:
    Wiping Anna’s memory falls into a category that I hate, called: “Protecting the Main Character By Not Telling Them What They’re Being Protected From” (“The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea” anyone?). My other gripe with the Trolls is the song “Fixer Upper”. It’s not a bad song, it’s a victim of poor placement. From the start of the movie it’s the Trolls themselves who set up that ice in the heart is a very bad thing, We saw Anna get struck in the heart not 5 minutes ago, Kristoff’s trying to explain, but the Trolls are only interested in singing this whimsy song about how good a hubby Kristoff could be with a little work, and after the song’s over, Grand Pabbie finally comes forward only to tell us that she’s dying, and by extent HAS been dying this whole time. It’s the same problem as “A Girl Worth Fighting For” in “Mulan” (Except it’s more annoying when I watch “Mulan” because it goes from an upbeat song to the sight of a fricking massacre).

    II. The Ending:
    While not a bad ending at all, I thought Elsa mastered the whole “Love will thaw” thing a bit too quickly. Personally I would have had her struggle and fail on her first attempt, and then after a few caring words from Anna, try again and succeed.

    But all in all, these things did not hinder my enjoyment of the movie in any way. As mentioned before, I liked it so much that I saw it 3x in the cinema. And whereas my inner hype usually dyes down with repeat viewings, I find myself only liking “Frozen” more with each viewing, and when I read into it, all the little brilliant things, like the metaphors, and subtexts that I never noticed before (Olaf being the embodiment of Elsa and Anna’s love for each other), only makes it better in my eye. It’s the obvious choice, but Elsa is easily my favourite character in the movie, I think she’s the most developed and relatable of all the Disney Princesses (The relation coming from how a lot of us know what it’s like to live with a secret, or an eccentricity that we all try to cover up out of fear), and Idina Menzel (Or “Adele Dazeem”, for all of you still dwelling on that joke) just plays it to perfection. In my honest opinion, she’s one of the best CGI characters ever put to screen (Also in this league I would include Gollum from “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit”, and Woody and Buzz from “Toy Story”). I’ve always liked the look of winter and ice, and this movie’s animation is like a dream, from the construction of the ice palace, to Anna saving Elsa’s life, to the great thaw, it blows me out of my seat every time I watch it. The songs, like most people, I simply can’t get enough of, “Let it Go” being the obvious favourite, Kristen and Robert Lopez you really outdid yourselves. Throw in a touching message about family love, loveable side characters, and some nice twists.

    In the months that have passed by, it’s gone to make it’s way to join the ranks of my favourite Disney movies. And here they are (In order of age, subsidiary labels (PIXAR, Touchstone) included):

    – Fantasia
    – Alice in Wonderland
    – The Jungle Book
    – TRON
    – Who Framed Roger Rabbit
    – Aladdin
    – The Lion King
    – Ed Wood
    – Toy Story
    – Frozen

    Thank you for reading

    M. Young

  • damnthemusic!

    FROZEN! So emotionally powerful and DAMN the music! Tangled seems more a comedy beside the amazing, heartwarming drama Frozen has.

  • Jimmy

    I’m sorry, but TANGLED won the characters catagory as well. Every character in Frozen (besides Elsa) were pretty annoying. I’ve always loved Tangled and it as much funnier as well.

    • Lithia

      Really? Rapunzel came off as a Mary Sur to me.

  • Eyad

    Tangled had more comedy, a longer and more important conflict. meanwhile as much as I enjoyed frozen Olaf, frozen’s plot felt to short and Hans wasn’t a good villain. And when Anna pushes Hans down softly, i felt like he should’ve gotten a much more severe punishment and it made it seem like the conflict with him was not important at all. I guess it was supposed to be more about Elsa controlling her powers but then they should’nt have focused so much on Hans. And I find this true love thing as a cheap trick or even a gimmick.

  • Muhammad Raheem

    Tangled has charm and humour. Frozen has jack squat. You know your movie’s plot is not very memorable when everyone only remembers that one single song that people wont shut up about.

    • Keyblademaster123

      Frozen has good story, great characters that is honestly better than Tangled’s in some aspects, amazing animation and outstanding soundtrack. Everybody remembers the plot of the movie and remembers everything else. It’s not just the song people remember since you aren’t telling the truth. Frozen does have jack squat and a lot of it.

  • Cate

    1) Rapunzel being 17-18 and Flynn being 26 is creepy
    2) Elsa as a strong woman who doesn’t need a love interest is ground-breaking for Disney. Finally – a princess/queen who doesn’t have a prince/king!!!
    3) Tangled cost $260m to make and only grossed $200m in the US. If it was so great, how come nobody saw it? Even Alvin & the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel made $219m the year before in 2009.
    4) Tangled continued to perpetuate the “beautiful people are good, ugly people are evil” theme that is so dated it’s exhausting. It’s extra annoying that Tangled tries to pass itself off as modern & hip when really it’s just cliche and stale.
    5) Frozen’s twist on true love being a selfless act between sisters – very fresh!
    6) The music in Frozen – Oscars got it right!

  • L

    Tangled had a SIGNIFICANTLY stronger story and I loved that Mandy Moore was finally a Disney princess. While Frozen is ok, (and I’m obsessed with Elsa’s character design), the songs were unoriginal (4-Chord Song, anyone?), the story was very watered down, and Idina Menzel is always too flat or too sharp, for my ear. I did enjoy Frozen, but Tangled is always going to be stronger in my book. Plus, Flynn Rider wasn’t just a random love interest. He was just as important as Rapunzel. Hans and Kristoff were boring by comparison and you could have switched them with anyone else and it would have made no difference.

    • QueenElas1225

      Don’t judge a whole song by who sings it, but by how it written.

  • May

    #TeamTangled all the way. Honestly, Frozen was a hit only because the slightly more dramatic magical side appealed to kids. Older watchers would appreciate Tangled for its intriguing concept, charming characters, and all those little subtleties in the facial expressions and actions that the one-time watchers would easily miss. Seriously don’t know what the whole Frozen craze is all about. Tangled > Frozen. Done.

    • Anonymous

      Are you crazy? Several teenagers loved Frozen. It wasn’t made for a younger audience than Tangled.

      • AegysLTS

        Full fledged male here, loves Frozen.

    • AegysLTS

      My 60 year old mother herself prefers Frozen instead of Tangled, Frozen have deeper emotional story while Tangled is very much a comedy, in fact it reminded me so much of DreamWorks. Not my words. Hers.

  • lily

    yolo tangled i love fROZEN YAYAYAYAYA

  • Varg2000

    FROZEN! It’s the greatest movie ever made! Tangled isn’t even close to the greatness of Frozen!

  • Daisybelle

    Team nobody! <3
    Both were amazing! This article is wonderful, and 100% accurate.

  • Pro

    Definitely its FROZEN….It’s songs, characters and most important to the magical animation as well as the story all makes it the best of all.It not only showed LOVE Relation between anna and kristof but also between the sisters anna and elsa, which is a very good and new concept in the movie….which owns it the best movie of all time as far as I think.

  • Rachel

    Frozen? Oh please, don’t make me laugh! Along with Frozen’s obvious plot holes and its lack of sense among its characters, Tangled is the better movie by a far margin. The only thing Frozen did better than Tangled was the music. (Let It Go is amazing.)

  • i love tangled

    TANGLED TANGLED TANGLED guys why frozen tangled is much better, the only thing GOOD in frozen is that song LET IT GO and THATS IT but in tangled everything is interesting. i don’t get it….. PEOPLE DIE FOR FROZEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but they shouldn’t. Tangled is so much better, oh well please tell me why you LOVE frozen! i think the movie frozen actually froze your brain! NOT BEING RUDE, thanks for reading this!

    • QueenElas1225

      Yeah, because it’s almost straight out of THE FRIKIN’ BROTHERS GRIMM BOOK OF FAIRYTALES. Yes frozen was originally going to be based of The Snow Queen, but go read the story, completely different. And have you ever noticed that almost all of the Disney princesses are Brothers Grimm? Disney finally went to Anderson, good choice. PS say hans kristoff anna sven really quick.

  • Carey

    Tangled has better rewatch power and more overall fun

  • lolipedofin

    Love the article, I agree with most of the points, Tangled story is far more cohesive and engaging than Frozen. I was expecting so much from Frozen but it just fell flat for me. They should have reduced the screentime to 60-70 minutes and make the story more compact. I also feel that Tangled character is better or at least on par, solely thanks to Maximus and Flynn.


    Frozen Songs > Tangled Songs
    “I See The Light” >>> “Let It Go”

  • Nicky

    I’m going to have to say Tangled. I wanted Rapunzel and Flynn to succeed. I cared about them. I was happy when they were and sad when they were too. Anna and Elsa? I really didn’t care about them. I found their personalities lacking and in the end, I really didn’t care about either of them. I also found Tangled’s villain to be better because lets face it, Hans is an awful villain. In fact, Frozen didn’t need a villain. All it needed was to focus on Elsa trying to come to grips with her powers. That conflict enough.

    Frozen is pretty but story wise and character wise, it’s bland. And even though I enjoy the film, I think it could have been better. THere are a lot of plot holes and things that just don’t get resolved. It was good but I honestly don’t think it’s the best Disney has ever done. Tangled, in my opinion, is better.

  • It’s tangled hand down. Frozen is two sisters with family problems. And trying to married a guy in one day. you see it as a classic I see it as a dumb girl making a big mistake. Tangled is a bit more realistic. The first guy she met didn’t fall for him in one day then wonted to get married.In tangled they spent time with each other. she learn about him and he learn about her then BOOM they like each other. Frozen just feel like every other disney movie.

    • QueenElas1225

      PS the family problems thing!!! ARE YOU FRIKIN SEIRIOUS!!!????? Almost everyone has family problems. Take it from me my older sister threatened to shoot me in the head with my hunting bow

      • I was talking about Frozen family problem I don’t care about yours. if your sister wonts to kill you then that you’re problem. I can’t help you’re family problem but here a better understanding of Frozen problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dach1nPbsY8

        • Ranting Swede

          What problem exactly? It’s a classic Prophetic Twist where a troll says something incredibly vague and the parents overreact. It’s such a classic story trope that Oedipus Rex (429 BC) runs on this.

          • It seem you’re not looking at the bigger picture. You just look at one thing and assume other. Frozen was a good movie but I enjoy Tangled more doesn’t mean dislike family drama. And like you said it’s a classic well I’m going with something new I don’t need classic.

          • Ranting Swede

            Oh really? What big picture might that be? You like Tangled because its a love story where the romance between Flynn and Rapunzel is the point of the movie. You don’t like Frozen because the romance between Anna and Hans is truncated and that’s precisely the point that the movie is trying to get across. Seems to me, you’re missing the point of Frozen. And you chose to highlight that you weren’t enthralled the movie because it was focused on the family drama, as opposed to the romance. So I’m just going off what you said. If you go back and read my actual words, I say that you prefer romances, not that you hate family dramas.

            The thing about classic tropes is that they are pervasive. A prophecy twist has been used in everything from Macbeth to Star Wars and now it appears in Frozen. You seem to think its a flaw of the movie but I merely wanted to point out that it appears in so many pieces of media that are widely regarded as good. Just because you don’t need something classic, it’s absurd to a) assume that modern storytelling does not owe a debt to old story tropes (Star Wars is derived from ideas that are common across many myths and Tangled uses cliches that are as old as the oldest rom coms) and b) that they are bad.


          • Wow you’re doing what just say said before looking at one thing assume other. when did I say don’t like frozen and dislike the fact that theirs romance between to sister. you’re nothing but a butt hurt fan that love to assume shit then bring up other things no give a crap about.If you like frozen more then tangled then that ok but don’t give me a lame ass essay on my like an dislike. Man you got some serious issues.

          • Ranting Swede

            My apologies. It takes a lot to parse your incoherent sentences that are replete with syntax and grammatical errors. So when you say “Frozen is two sisters with family problems. And trying to married a guy in one day. you see it as a classic I see it as a dumb girl making a big mistake. Tangled is a bit more realistic. The first guy she met didn’t fall for him in one day then wonted to get married.In tangled they spent time with each other. she learn about him and he learn about her then BOOM they like each other.”, are you not arguing that you prefer the more realistic romance in Tangled to the one in Frozen and bring up the family issues in Frozen because it detracts from the time alloted for romance in Frozen?

          • Really melodramatic much just because I don’t like what you like i’m bad guy did I hurt your feeling when I told you that I like Tangled better then Frozen. You love to assume you’re a butt hurt now you’re copy and paste you’re so childish. Are you here to debate or just jerking off to other people comment that why you block people from seeing your comment because you’re full of BS. It’s just sad. It’s just a movie get over yourself get your fat self out of you’re mother basement go outside get some fresh air. Calm yourself down man go eat a snicker.

          • Ranting Swede

            I’m afraid my motivations weren’t as simple as you would like to think. I don’t have an issue with you liking one movie over the other. In fact, I noted that it was perfectly fine to have a preference for one over the other. I just don’t bother to argue with personal preferences. But you were using faulty logic to argue that one was better than the other (essentially you seemed to consider that Anna’s relationship with Hans not being realistic to be a negative of Frozen, rather than a moral of the movie) and I debated that.

            I realize now that it was probably a bad idea to bring up how our modern movies are influenced by classical Greek literature with someone who misspelled a basic word like “want” for “wont” twice. It now looks like I’m bullying someone who has a difficulty expressing him/herself in English and I honestly regret that.

            As this conversation can clearly go nowhere, I shall bow out now. Have a happy holiday.

            p/s I block my comments because I’ve interacted with Gamergate people and those people are freaking scary.

          • All your doing is talking about same thing never improving. Then you’re going comment back pretend that your smart when your not. saying the same thing that your said before.You get mad because I care enough to tell you how it is. you don’t have to make up excuse I know you wont to join Anger management classes don’t worry my friend they prove helpful in controlling that temper of yours. I’m here for you buddy 😉

  • There no real bad guy in frozen

  • #NoWorries

    I liked both but prefer Tangled

  • QueenElas1225

    Ok, I admit Tangled was a very excellent movie, my favorite for some time, but with the new technology it had access to, the visuals and hair and even the lanterns I’m realizing could of been 1,000 times more stunning. Great movie though. Frozen on the other hand, did absolutely amazing with the technology given to them, they even made new technology to make everything, not just the people, more lifelike. The songs in Tangled were very few, as I remember only 4, and most were poorly written(from a technical aspect). I can not see how this is considered a musical. Frozen though, had an abundance of songs so the ears were constantly delighted by a new piece. The songs actually flowed WITH the plot and were not roadblocks to erase past plotline mistakes. The songs in Frozen were also almost perfect from a technical aspect, varied in sound and genre, had feeling, and had substantially enough to make this musical LEGIT.

    • Aegys

      “The songs actually flowed WITH the plot and were not roadblocks to erase past plotline mistakes. ”

      I have to agree! I find the transition to the songs really smooth and without skipping a beat, and it blended in well with the storytelling, I am really puzzled why this wasn’t noticed by others!

  • Jestress

    Tangled because I adore Rapunzel with and without her golden locks. And because that “I See the Light” scene is the most gorgeous animated thing I’ve seen in such a long time… And because Gothel is a way better villain than Hans.

    But I still love Frozen as well. They are indeed different movies and you don’t have to hate one to love the other. I just personally prefer Tangled 😛

  • ejne

    but Tangled was in frozen too. on bridge in begining of movie. Did anybode see it ?

  • Dusty Ayres

    For me, the foot focus is why I love Tangled, as well as the story, with its undercurrent of psychological (possibily sexual) abuse from Gothel towards Rapunzel. I haven’t seen Frozen, but from what I’ve heard, people don’t think the story, characters, or animation are that great (I would like to see it, preferably on the big screen someplace.)

  • google

    frozen only only

  • Rapunzel


  • Rapunzel

    Take Let it Go out of Frozen…….there wouldn’t be this huge vote. Tangled is MUCH better

    • I respect your opinion, but I fell in love with Frozen even before the Let It Go part.

  • Rapunzel

    Mother Gothel is SO evil; much more evil than Hans. I don’t even think Hans was a baddy to start with until he thought he finally had a chance to become king of Arendelle. Mother Gothel locked up Rapunzel in a tower; just for youth! The queen was ill, but she didn’t care. She just hid the magical flower. She stabbed Eugene!

  • Rapunzel

    There are no Disney princes (except for Hans) in these two movies, but Eugene was braver than Kristoff. When Anna turned to Elsa, the mountain man didn’t follow the princess. Eugene nearly drowned for Rapunzel and cut her hair off with no chance of living. Also, I’d rather have Rapunzel’s power than Elsa’s out-of-control icy magic! I could heal everyone and take a climb!

  • Rapunzel

    Tangled is a better movie than Frozen. I’m wondering what’s so good about it! Yeah, great, catchy song, but I think Tangled’s songs are a little better. ‘I see the Light’ and ‘When will my life Begin?’ are great. My favourite Frozen song is ‘For the First Time in Forever’. An ice palace would be great to own, and Anna’s white streak is WAY better than Rapunzel’s brown one, but I think the Tangled is the better movie. I would LOVE to ride Maximus round the palace island, and be just like Rapunzel, letting my hair fly in the wind. But with all my friends and family, I already see the light!

  • Rapunzel

    Rapunzel and Anna are cousins. The question is, why didn’t Anna go to Rapunzel’s wedding? I guess if she went she would drown like her parents. The tower is more beautiful than Elsa’s palace. And ‘Flower Gleam and Glow’ is a great song that Rapunzel knows off by heart!

  • Rapunzel

    If this was ‘Let it Go’ VS ‘When will my life Begin?’ Let it Go would definitely win. If you look at all my posts, you can tell I’m #TeamTangled because Tangled is my 2nd favourite film ever! Please tell me what movie won in the end. I think it will be Frozen, sadly. Anyway, Tangled’s Mother Gothel I think is the most evil villain. I know I already talked about baddies, but Mother Gothel must be the evilest. Locking a lost princess up in a tall, hidden tower, says she knows best, trys to trap Rapunzel will she will never be found again, then stabs Eugene! Don’t you think that’s more evil than Hans? Continue on team #TeamFrozen if you like, thinking it’s the better movie, but you have to admit, Mother Gothel is much more evil than Hans!

  • Rapunzel

    Mother Gothel

  • Day

    Team Tangled all the way! Frozen is a good movie, but it’s obviously too overrated. That drives me nuts. I think the main reason why people like this movie is because of the powerful songs. Just because the songs are powerful, doesn’t mean that the whole movie is the best animated movie. In animation, Tangled wins. The movements are fluid and beautiful, everything is. The characters are also a lot more lifelike. I personally feel that the animation in Tangled is better than just dumping a lot of snow as seen in Frozen. As for characterization, I think Rapunzel is is better than Anna and Elsa combined. Yes, we know Anna is goofy, but that doesn’t say much. The characters lack depth. Okay, here comes the main part. The story and plot of Tangled is indeed much, much better than Frozen. In Frozen the story is vague. We don’t even know where Elsa gets her ice powers from! All we know is that Elsa hides from her sister. Most of the plot is with Anna in the mountains with Kristofff. Most of the humor looks like it comes from the snowman. Frozen still holds some charm, but I feel that Tangled is superior. Tangled has originality and its own story.

  • Kragdar

    I personally felt that Tangled was much better. A lot of the songs in Frozen felt disjointed and unnecessary (especially the troll song), and it seemed that a lot of the effort was heavily loaded into “Let it Go”, leaving the entire movie feeling like an ad for the music video.Those in Tangled were both fun, well timed, and created as equals. All the songs in Frozen were meant to be inferior to “Let it Go” and I suppose it bothered me. On pure score (not including songs) Frozen definitely wins.

    The characterization felt contrived in Frozen as well. Outside of Anna and Elsa, everyone felt too independent of one another. I get that a lot of the message was independence, but it ends up making all characters aside from Anna and Elsa feel like rungs on a ladder for the sisters to pass over instead of human beings. For most of the movie Anna merely treated Kristoff as a means to an end and hardly gets to know him at all. Suddenly after a song (the awkward troll song) and a botched rescue attempt she loves him? She spent more time getting to know Olaf. Rapunzel and Flynn actually grow with each other as they travel, their feelings for one another make sense by the end. The dynamic between Kristoff and Anna feels more like Anna is saying, “okay, well the other guy was a jerk and he’s gone, and your here. I guess I can work with that.” Frozen over-emphasized the cuddly creature characters, at times making them more intriguing than the main characters. Frozen also presented a VERY weak villain. Hans is little more than a spoiled opportunist. Mother Gothel is evil and vain and willing to kill to preserve eternal life.

    I found the dialogue to be stronger in Tangled, as well. It is in little things like Mother Gothel referring to Rapunzel as “my flower”. A statement that could be construed as endearment out of context becomes a sinister statement of Gothel’s view that Rapunzel is an object to be coveted. Tangled relied on conversation to drive the narrative. Frozen used song and the characters narrating to drive the story, making it feel shallow and spoon fed.

    That all being said, I did enjoy both movies a great deal, and a lot of my comment is opinion and preference, not to be taken as an attack on anyone else’s preferences.

  • Angharad

    I actually think Tangled won plot-wise. The first half of Frozen was absolutely AMAZING, but then it was a total flop – and c’mon, Disney can manage Rapunzel’s 70ft long hair, but can’t get Elsa’s braid over her shoulder in Let It Go? SLOPPY!

    I prefer Flynn and Rapunzel’s relationship to Anna and Kristoff – the Frozen’s main pairing just felt more like…friends. That true love thing just felt like an out of the blue thing, and Hans becoming the villain was because in my opinion, the producers we’re like oh, snap! Shit, we haven’t got a main antagonist – let’s make it…HANS! Gothel is a much better villain than Hans.

    I felt like Tangled’s characters were more down-to-earth and fun to watch. I do hate this perky, ditzy act the heroines have now. Why can’t we have princesses like Esmeralda or Megara? Or Mulan?

    Tangled’s music was more pleasing than Frozen’s – I feel as if songs like In Summer and Fixer Upper were created to fill the song quota for the movie, not to just help with the plot. And it felt to poppy and cheesy. Tangled’s I See The Light, I’ve Got a Dream and oh, my god! Kingdom Dance was one of the most beautiful Disney scores I’ve heard – I could listen to it over and over again. I do like how positive Let It Go is – it’s just a feel good anthem. If any of you hate it now, listen to Idina Menzel’s Defying Gravity if you want a break from that song. 😀

  • Jackson Staninger

    I’ll admit Frozen has better songs (excluding the ear-bleeding Fixer Upper song). But on everything else I’d say Tangled is the better contender.
    The characters in Frozen are a bit underdeveloped

    Anna is basically a first draft of Rapunzel, both spunky and fun, but whereas R comes of as sweetly naive yet determined, Anna comes off as affected and goofy, to a degree that the character doesn’t seem as real (also no where near as sympathetic. Rapunzel is the way she is because of manipulation, Anna is the way she is because of stupid parenting).

    Elsa, while I love that she is an introvert, that’s her only personality trait (oh but being in that situation you become a shell of a person blah blah blah), yes I know I get it I really do (I’ve been there), it’s not the character’s fault it’s the writing. We don’t know anything about her character other than that, (and don’t tell me about the paper thin character traits that come from nothing like saying “you can’t marry a man you just met” makes her smart) Point being: If someone listed her as the most boring Disney princess ever, I wouldn’t be surprised (though I’d vote for Pocahontas). But again, I still like her character, I just wish I saw more.

    Hans is more written like a dumbass, and I agree Mother Gothel isn’t the top ten Disney Villains but Hans would be in the worst. ‘Hey I’m gonna take over as king by denying the kiss and monologue my way out the door that can be opened with a f-ing carrot and then kill your sister out in the open.’
    The twist, while not a plot contrivance (which is more than I can say for Big Hero 6), isn’t as built up as well as the rest, it comes of more like an M Night Shyamalan movie.

    I love both movies, I really do. but Tangled wins for me

  • Ava

    Frozen is the best. And nothing can replace it

  • Jessica Goodall

    Frozen is cheap. It’s a ploy to make more money by creating “catchy” songs instead of a meaningful story. Where did Elsa get her powers? Frozen’s story is rushed and incomplete. In my opinion, I don’t feel for any of the characters. There is so little back story to associate with. Think of Up, we instantly feel sadness and feel the pain of the characters. In Frozen we don’t get any of that. And Olaf, who wants to see summer. This is irrelevant to the story. He is simply a cheap comic ploy created for children to run to their parents and ask for Olaf related toys. It’s ridiculous that people actually fall for this junk.

    In comparison, no Tangled’s songs aren’t as catchy, but they tell the story. They fit in and blend in so well that it isn’t about the fact that the song is stuck in your head the entirety of the day, it’s about getting across a message. In Tangled we see where Rapunzel’s powers come from, a magic flower, and why she has been kept away from civilization. Hans? He turns on a dime, and his motivation is a throne? How is this motivation to become a murderer? Mother Gothel is a much better villain with eternal life as a motivator. Tangled plays with our emotions making us think that Mother Gothel may actually care for Rapunzel “I love you most” meanwhile when she yells at Rapunzel “You are never leaving this tower!” we see where her true feelings reside, with her hair.

    Feel free to try and refute me, but Tangled is the winner of the two. It’s sad that all it takes to create a top selling movie are catchy tunes and some fancy animation. The story is irrelevant.

    • Do you want to build a snowman?

  • Tamoor Rana

    #TeamMufasa #GG

  • Eugene Tangled

    Two things that I need to tell
    1. Winner for “CHARACTERISTICS” is Tangled, not Frozen.
    2. I don’t know why other people says that more vote for Tangled is wrong. Yes, Tangled is the greatest film ever than Frozen. So, Tangled got more votes. The reason why Frozen is more popular is Frozen get overrated and more promoted than Tangled.

  • Tyger Uppercut

    I know this T vs F is two years old, but given that this was a draw, I think there should be a clear winner here. Now I know a great amount of people turned into Tweens when the Twilight movies came out & sensible people knew those were complete garbage. I think people are completely crazed with Frozen. I think it had good songs, one great one, but like the Titanic song & Bodyguard songs, you hear it enough times and you’ll want to rip your own ears off. The reason why Tangled performed not as well as Frozen money wise was the marketing they did for it was very poor. They obviously made up for it in most over the top way. Tangled is a far better movie, it actually resembles classic Disney movies with modern spin. The storyline is fleshed out better & is more re-watchable than Frozen. Frozen’s story was so bland, and they kept repeating the Anna & Elsa relationship dynamic, if you call it that. It is a safe movie, no one really dies, except the parents that are probably the worst parents in Disney history. There was no real romance between Kristoff & Anna, he seemed to love her because he was suppose to. They were more like brother and sister. The biggest plot hole in the whole story was that the troll people were so called “love experts” and yet could solve the problem at the very beginning of the film. Not to mention, Kristoff never put two and two together that it was Anna back when they were kids when this 1st happened. Pretty lazy writing. My kids favorite Disney movie of the two is Tangled, their favorite or most watched by choice is 101 Dalmatians. Classic is king, I’m not a fan of the Frozen addiction that has been going on for years now. I could use a break from it.

    • rbtck

      Let’s break down your points to prove how wrong you are.

      1. Twilight is not a good analogy as it was poorly received critically. Frozen is the most critically acclaimed film of the recent Disney movies.

      2. Song preferences are subjective and there are a lot more people who don’t mind the song regardless of the amount of times they have listened to it. I am one of them.

      3. Disney had poor expectations for Frozen before it was released and the trailer that came before the film was released was already a major turnoff for many. It defied expectations on a $150 million budget, which is far less than Tangled.

      4. Tangled had infinitely more plot inconsistencies than Frozen ever did. Frozen was objectively superior in this department. It also stepped out of Disney”s comfort zone with 2 well-made plot twists. I don’t see how this is “bland” and less re-watchable than a film that took zero risks, was rife with plot holes the size of the Grand Canyon and repeated the only dynamic in the film throughout it’s running time.

      5. Frozen was a film of many firsts, it was anything but “safe.” The irony of this part of your comment is Tangled is the definition of safe. Why would the parents be any worst than the one in Tangled? Because they locked her up? That in itself is a false misconception because she was seen outside her room on multiple occasions during the montage. Her parents were also shown to be trying their best to help her cause. In Tangled the King was highly incompetent not to have captured Mother Gothel when she kidnapped Rapunzel. That is the definition of bad parenting.

      6. Kristoff and Anna had plenty of chemistry, and after the many trials and tribulations they faced together him ending up with her was warranted. Your argument could be applied to Tangled as well; Flynn loved Rapunzel because he was supposed to. This isn’t real life, this is a movie. That’s what all movie characters do in romantic subplots.

      7. Why would the trolls solve a problem in the beginning of the film when there wasn’t one to begin with? Anna’s head was the only problem at that time, so the troll solved it. Her heart problem only cropped up later. It didn’t need intervention in the beginning of the film. Also Kristoff was too young at that moment to have equated Anna’s 5-year old self with her 18-year old self later. That isn’t the definition of “lazy writing.” The fact that none of the guards captured Gothel when she ran off with Rapunzel is a prime example of that considering there was only a single bridge to cross with an easily accessible choke point.

      8. I don’t happen to have favorites, however I do have a preference for the classics in Disney’s catalogue that are objectively superior to the mediocre trash that’s greenlighted every so often. While Tangled isn’t mediocre in my opinion, it is heavily flawed and that prevents it from being a classic. Frozen, while not perfect, is objectively superior to it and many others that have been released by Disney. Frozen’s hype is well-earned, Tangled doesn’t have one because it doesn’t deserve it to begin with.

  • Fikri Noh

    Well, what I want to say is Frozen is much better in music (90%) than Tangled (88%). But the thing is, the song “In Summer” doesn’t make any sense. Unlike Tangled, all songs makes sense.

    In characters, Tangled should be a winner.Rapunzel has more characteristics. About Flynn, yes, he’s a thief, but not for entire film. You know, “Flynn who is bad in the beginning finally becomes a good people”. This is a good lesson that the bad people won’t be bad forever. hans, on the other hand, good in the beginning, but later becomes a bad people. This is what I disliked because good people shouldn’t be bad.

    About graphics, yes. Tangled is the winner. Tangled is more stunning, realistic visual rather than Frozen which is more like cartoon.

    For story, yes, tangled tell us all important detail in the beginning so that we can understand the story. But, for Elsa, how did she got that icy power? Frozen’s story looks nessed up.

    Overall, Tangled is much better than Frozen. But I hate you that you say that Frozen is supposed to be the winner. In the poll above. Why? Why?

    Even Tangled is the winner, but I like to say that Tangled and Frozen still has the same components. Both of them still becomes the great film in history.

  • Manuel Orozco

    I like Tangled and Frozen equally overall but they are not really the most awesome Disney stuff in the world as some people say they are. They are anchored by three equally beautiful Mouse House divas! Let’s face the facts people. If Tangled wasn’t a success over five years ago, there would be no Frozen.

  • Iftekhar Ahmed

    Frozen without a shadow of doubt. The main characters were more enjoyable, the songs were more memorable and enjoyable, and most importantly, it used subversion of archetypal Disney tropes in a manner that was plot and moral relevant.

  • Fendeh

    Ok, I’m sorry but i gotta say, I’m kinda sick and tired of this Frozen hype, like rly. I like Tangled waaaaaay more than Frozen because it is just nice cute movie about love and stuff and not a musical with lame story. I like characters more too cause Maximus :D. And the songs, arrrgh, so, on one side, we have this so overrated and annoying song about letting it go and on the other side, I gotta admit, not so good songs, but Something that i want wins for me. Period. Winner:Tangled 10/10 P.S. I maybe find Tangled Better cause I was younger and it reminds me of good times 😉

  • Robbie Agnew

    Tangled is at 63%! Very happy as it is the better movie all around.

  • Jayden Leonard

    #TeamMoana 😉

  • Bianca Roman

    Team Frozen, of course!
    Tangled is a little bit boring, miss the adventure and Frozen is Amazing!!!
    Elsa, Anna, Olaf are GREAT!!!
    So…. Always Frozen win!

  • Rachel Wagner

    I love both of them! I refuse to pick a side

  • TripleStrykeLover

    I can’t really stand Frozen that much and I don’t think I’ve seen the whole Tangled movie, the humor looked kiddish.

  • Rushire Chan

    I love them both but the story is a huge part for me, and Tangled has a better storytelling than Frozen which is a little mess and has contradictions at the very end (but the beginning was great!)
    It’d be better if they really made a link between the sisters in the end, and not to try to be too modern and please to everyone (and transform the expert lovers in a unfunny comedy who try to marry Kristoff and Anna after they meet; while they’re trying to say during the whole movie “You can’t marry someone you just meet!”)