Tangled vs. Frozen: Which Is The Better Movie?

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.

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.

“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.

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 😉

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah! seriously…

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

That’s your opinion, and I respect it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

To each their own. 🙂

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

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