she tends to show up when there is a major change in character or character conflict

anonymous asked:

Hello there! I'm about nine chapters into my first book (that I'd like to make a trilogy), which basically the story of three sisters who work for a top secret government organization. I've been SO excited about writing this for such a long time, so the desire to finish this it is still there. However I've been in a slump recently and I've encountered a plot gap that I don't know what to fill with. Motivation: gone. How do I pick myself back up from this? Thank you so much!

Motivation: Plot Gaps vs. Plot Holes

I hope you managed to find your motivation again, considering the lateness of this reply, but it’s a good topic to discuss nonetheless.

Motivation to write comes up in nearly every post I make on this blog, which certainly makes sense considering stories don’t exist if we’re not motivated to write them. But I think the first step to conquering any slump, especially when it comes in the middle of a lengthy project, is to understand that it’s normal. It happens. But as confident as I am that slumps exist for writers, I’m also confident that they are just that: slumps. And you will rise out of it eventually. Have faith in that.

The second step is a lot less abstract. It comes down to identifying the exact problems. You mention a “plot gap,” and I want to zero in on that phrase for just a moment because a “plot gap” is entirely different from a “plot hole,” and how you approach each one requires a different strategy.

A plot gap implies that your story has a progression that makes sense, but it’s missing something. Maybe you realize that it’s time for your climax, and you’ve barely exited the setup portion of the story. You went from beginning to conclusion without any real middle. And it’s not that the story is too short word count/page wise; it’s that your ending feels unearned. You’ve barely tapped the surface of the conflict, and you’ve barely shown who the characters are, and the ending just feels too soon.

If that sounds like the boat you’re in, take a deep breath and get creative. It’s tempting to start filling in with amusing subplots or flashbacks, but that’s not the answer. It’s time to complicate things for your characters in a big way. Because if your plot goes from beginning to end without a middle, your conflict is most likely too simple. You need more obstacles, perhaps more drama, more at stake, more conflict.

One of the oldest tricks in the book for upping the ante in a stalled story is the introduction of a dead body. In fact, I used it myself recently. Have your characters stumble onto a dead body. What do they do about it? Who do they call (if anyone)? How are they involved? Who killed this person? What else does the killer want?

A dead body can force you to pose lots and lots of questions to yourself, and coming up with answers to these questions expands your brainstorming. It will usually produce more problems than solutions, and if the story is lacking a middle, you want more problems. And as you devise solutions to those problems, you realize that you need more scenes to set up those solutions. And voila, your middle starts growing.

If a dead body doesn’t really jive with your story, think of something else drastic you could do. Think outside of the box, and don’t worry if your idea seems to derail your ending. Sometimes that’s better - because now you have to spend substantial time trying to get the story back on track to your intended ending, which will lengthen your story (and more importantly, get you interested again).

A plot hole on the other handmeans that something isn’t adding up. You have this amazing dramatic ending in your head, but the elaborate way your hero finally defeats your villain contradicts information you explained earlier in the story. Or perhaps you introduced something early on that seemed important but it never comes up again. Plot holes are kind of like black holes - places where you throw exposition or major details after you write them. Their importance to the story seems to disappear into those black holes, never to be seen or heard from again. Yet no one ever forgets them. If you lose too much into those black holes, the story loses its cohesion, and ultimately its impact.

Plot holes tend to fly beneath the radar, and they often don’t show themselves until it’s too late to fix them easily. But you most likely know they’re there, and that’s what destroys your motivation. So one way to combat that is to have a free writing session where you basically vent about all these plot holes. Discuss what’s annoying you about the story. What is it that’s making you not want to write it? Once you’ve exhausted yourself and completely beaten the crap out of your story, take what you’ve written and break it down into bullet points. What are the problems?

Once you know the specific problems, it’s up to you to find your solutions. They might not come easily. It might take days or even weeks to come up with solutions, so be patient with yourself. If you hit a brick wall completely, then go back to whatever caused this problem in your plot. What event or action in the story led to this particular conflict/problem? Once you’ve identified that, imagine how that event could result in a different outcome. This could give you a new problem to solve in its place, and maybe it’s one that’s a little easier to tackle.

Example: Let’s take two characters - Sophie and Sarah. You’re trying to figure out why Sophie would ever forgive Sarah for something horrible she did. You’re trying to think of something Sarah could do to make it up to her, or maybe some event that Sophie could go through that has her in need of Sarah’s companionship and support. Maybe some character that tries to force some kind of “make-up” conversation by tricking them into the same room. Nothing seems good enough to get them reconciled. At this point, let’s look at what caused this problem. It’s this thing that Sarah did. Could we change it? Could we make it less unforgivable? Could something else come between them that isn’t the result of one hurting the other?

So when you’re stuck, go back a step and consider why you got stuck in the first place. Maybe the problem isn’t where you’re at now, it’s where you were a few scenes ago.

When all else fails, try to remember why you started. Think about the things that used to excite you, and decide if you lost those things somewhere along the way. If they’re still there, try to bring them to the forefront of the story, or add more of them. If it was the banter between the characters, include more of it. If it was their rich backstory, find ways to show more of it in the story (avoiding out-of-place flashbacks), or if it was the villain that inspired you, find ways to make that villain’s impact even greater. Focus on what once excited you and chances are, it’ll excite you again.

That was a long response, but hopefully helpful!

-Rebekah

anonymous asked:

Hi! I know everyone is talking about how they screwed up Arya's character on last night's GOT episode. I just wanted to hear your opinion on that?

Hi! <3

Well, truth be told, had you asked me pre-season 4 about Arya’s adaption in the show, I would have said that it was clear she wasn’t a favorite of D&D’s (though not the worst, looking at you Stannis,) and her character arc/characterization was messy (but not the worst, yet again.) After the major cuts and lightening in Harrenhal, some changes were bound to happen but still.

Now, after this season, I think it’s very obvious that D&D don’t give a crap about Arya and are content to absolutely wreck her character. She’s so messed up at this point, I don’t even want to know what they have planned.

Keep reading

Color Pie Friday: The Quest for the Pie-Force

Few game franchises have last as long as The Legend of Zelda series, and few television shows have aired so few episodes as The Legend of Zelda. Or spawned such ridiculous games as the Zelda titles for the Philips CD-i. What dark moments in such a classic franchise.

But those flops aren’t the focus of today’s article. The Legend of Zelda series is fairly unique in that it recycles the same cast of characters for adventures that span millennia, continents, and even timelines. The fantasy clash of good vs. evil replays throughout history, identical individuals returning each time to participate in this world’s cyclical stories. This article will be looking at the color identities of these treasured few, although some fan-favorite characters will be appearing in the end. So sit back, grab a bottle of moo moo milk, and let the lore of ages whisk you into the forgotten past.

Link

Whenever evil threatens the kingdom of Hyrule, the Triforce of Courage manifests within a young man. This person isn’t anything special at first, and he has a habit of oversleeping important events. But destiny thrusts greatness upon this individual, tempering his spirit in the forge of battle.

Destiny plays a large role in the series, and it’s always a core part of Link’s character. The quest of fate is a Green one, a journey that was bound to happen by the cosmos. Link usually doesn’t begin as a mighty warrior. Sometimes he’s just a child. Sometimes he’s a blacksmith. But as he explores dungeons and finds treasure and fights evil, he grows into his destined role as the Hero of [whateverthethemeofthisgameis]. Link is often from the woods, so that’s a flavor point for Green.

Link isn’t just Green, however, showing off plenty of White traits. He shoulders the responsibility of protecting an entire kingdom, the kind of self-sacrifice that White is honored to bear. The side of battle Link fights on is important too. As a fantasy series, The Legend of Zelda features conflict between good and evil. Since Link fights for the side of good, he supports the group that believes in a moral world of right and wrong. Not surprising considering he wields the Sword of Evil’s Bane.

Zelda

Princess Zelda is the corporeal reincarnation of the goddess of light, Hylia. She often assists Link with the power of light in order to defeat evil once and for all. Zelda is a just ruler, always acting to protect her people from harm. This usually involves sacrificing her own power to placate Ganon long enough to give Link the opportunity to strike the beast down. These traits center Zelda in White.

The Triforce of Wisdom is also an integral part of Zelda, although this series doesn’t talk about wisdom in the same way Magic does (which is Green). Wisdom in The Legend of Zelda generally deals with mental powers. Zelda often displays telepathic abilities and can peer into future events. She usually constructs plans for Link to follow, another Blue trait. Finally, Ocarina of Time saw her sneak around as Sheik (spoiler alert). This ninja-like transformation is infused with Blue’s desire for secrecy and deception.

I think there are definitely versions of Princess Zelda that push her towards Bant colors, adding Green in. Skyward Sword is one of these appearances, as Zelda’s storyline was very much infused with the same destiny-awareness that Link experiences.

It’s also worth noting that Zelda’s appearance in The Wind Waker as the pirate Tetra (spoiler alert) was less White and more Red. She’s very much a hothead that gets into trouble rather than an elegant princess ruling a kingdom.

Ganon

Ganon lusts for power, imbued with the unending greed of the demon Demise. The Triforce of Power wells up in Ganon and drives him to claim the other two pieces of the Golden Power. Ganon wishes to rule over every kingdom as their omnipotent king. This is a desire deeply rooted in Black.

Some incarnations of the character manifest as Ganondorf, a Gerudo wizard who can still transform into the bestial Ganon monster. When banished from Hyrule in The Twilight Princess, Ganondorf was reduced to an ethereal mass of energy, able to possess Zant until the usurper king walked to Hyrule.

The ability to shapeshift combined with Ganon’s proclivity for deception give him a fairly regular Blue side to his personality. He often hides behind dummy versions of himself, drawing Link into tough battles that keep Ganon’s own body safe. Many incarnations of the wizard can also teleport, overwhelming enemies with strategies that complement his tremendous power.

The Gorons

A few races continue to show up through the Legend of Zelda franchise, the Gorons being one of the major ones. They are very Red creatures, living in the mountains and eating rocks. Gorons tend to let their emotional states greatly influence their actions. A happy Goron will dance and sing. A sad Goron will wail away in tears. An angry Goron will unleash its wrath.

Gorons are also master weaponsmiths, a trait that can also fit into Red. They are known for their unbreakable swords and mighty hammers, powerful weapons designed for offense, not defense.

The Zoras

Another oft-returning race are the Zoras (or Zolas if you go by early translations). Zoras are basically Merfolk, which flavorfully puts them in Blue. Important Zora locations are often hidden, only accessible by those able to solve a puzzle or move through the water.

The items Link receives from them also tend to be Blue in nature. Movement items like the Zora tunic and flippers physically alter Link’s ability to explore Hyrule. The hookshot is often found in water-based dungeons as well.

Impa

The Sheikah were an ancient tribe that swore to protect the Hyrule royal family. Impa is portrayed as the last member of this tribe and generally serves as Princess Zelda’s guardian. The Sheikah prefer to work from the shadows, giving them a Blue ninja quality. As guardians, they will lay their lives on the line for those they protect. This makes them also White.

It’s interesting that both Zelda and Impa are typically portrayed with the same color identity, even though those identities come from different places. It really speaks to the depth of the color pie when coincidences like this crop up.

Tingle

One of the oddest characters in the Legend of Zelda series, Tingle is a thirty-five year old man who believes himself to be a reincarnated fairy. Or is trying to become a fairy. Or is already a fairy. Tingle’s identity crisis takes many forms.

Tingle exemplifies Blue’s side of the Green/Blue conflict. He doesn’t think being born a short, fat man should stop him from pursuing his dream of being a fairy. While the methods vary from game to game, Tingle thinks that some kind of magic will be able to turn him into a fairy if he tries hard enough. He usually gives Link something in return for helping try to find these transformative magic.

Otherwise, Tingle features many other Blue traits. He’s fond of flying around on red balloons, and Blue is the color of flying. He’s also a seasoned mapmaker, cataloging the landscape and translating ancient runes.

Midna

The princess of the Twilight Realm was turned into an imp by Zant. She followed him into Hyrule to seek the Fused Shadows, ancient artifacts that had been hidden due to their terrible power. Midna happened upon Link, who had been transformed into a wolf by Zant’s twilight. She struck a deal with the hero in order to obtain the Fused Shadows. Up until that point in the game, Midna looked like a typical mono-Black antihero.

Zelda heals Midna from certain death, however, and her attitude begins to change. Her hatred for the Hyrulians softens, and her partnership with Link becomes a mission to save both worlds, not just the Twilight Realm. Once we see Midna’s compassionate side, we know she is fighting Zant because she cares for her people, not just because she’s pissed about losing the throne. The second half of The Twilight Princess reveals Midna to be a White/Black character.

Midna’s dedication to the protection of her people reaches a climax when she destroys the Mirror of Twilight, severing the connection between her world and Hyrule. After all, the problem started when Ganondorf was sent through the portal by the Hylians. Breaking the bridge keeps the Twilight Realm safe from Hyrule and Hyrule safe from the Twilight Realm.

Skull Kid

Skull Kid is a recurring character who embodies Red’s mischievous side. A forest imp, Skull Kid spends most of his time luring people into the woods and playing tricks on them. Or stealing their stuff. Or beating them up. He’s not a very nice person. Skull Kid just wants to have fun with people, but doesn’t realize that his idea of fun hurts other people and pushes them away.

When possessed by Major in Majora’s Mask, Skull Kid’s loneliness becomes amplified into absolute destruction. Simple tricks become apocalyptic aspirations, turning Skull Kid into a puppet of the dark force within the mask.

A Tale of Swords and Souls, Eternally Retold

Wait, that’s not right…

Like most fantasy stories, the Legend of Zelda franchise tells stories of good triumphing over evil. Link, Zelda, and Ganon are brought together again and again, each one championing an aspect of the Triforce. These features tell a very White vs. Black story through the Green lens of destiny. It seems fitting then, that the supporting characters tend to fall into Blue and Red.

Now excuseeeeee me, planeswalkers, but it’s time to back to drooling over PAX announcements for Battle for Zendikar.

Frozen Story Disscussion with Emma

Emma Schulte

Hey guys. I saw your video and immediately began typing an extremely long response to it in a comment. But once I finished I figured a comment was probably not the best place for this sort of discussion. I hope you receive this message, and I invite anything you have to say in return.

I’m a student studying storytelling, so I can see why you make a lot of the points you make. But I have a vastly different opinion of this film than you do. I’m concerned that you’ve missed the film’s point and a lot of people on youtube are listening.

I think you guys kind of have the right idea, but you’re misunderstanding the focus of the film. The film’s point is not about the sisterly love between Anna and Elsa, it’s about Elsa learning to open up and let people in after fearing them for her entire life. Elsa is, in fact, the character of change in this film. Anna herself does not change. Anna is actually the one who is a plot device in order to bring about Elsa’s change. The things that you think would make the film better are already happening. Having the protagonist not be the character of change is not unusual. In Tangled and Paranorman, for example, the protagonist is also not the character of change.

In my opinion, the reason Anna is our protagonist is so we can understand how this significant change in Elsa is able to happen. Elsa is a selfish character who spends the whole film concerned about her own wellbeing. Anna is a selfless character who puts herself in danger for her sister and her kingdom without a second thought. Because the audience spends so much time with Anna and Anna’s selflessness, the audience is able to understand how Anna can sacrifice her life in order to help Elsa also become selfless. If we focused on Elsa the entire film, this ultimate sacrifice would come out of left field, and it would be harder to understand why Elsa is so moved by it. We would see Elsa in her ice castle and see Anna show up, but we would miss the fact that Anna is thinking only about helping Elsa and the kingdom.

A point on Kristoff in the climax. Elsa’s heart is healed by pure love and selflessness. The storytellers had to make absolutely sure that the audience did not misconstrue this for romantic love. So it had to be a family member who died for her and helped her change, or it might be mistaken as a love interest. To make it even more clear, they /included/ a love interest in the climax. They didn’t do this to say “true love is about sisters, not cute boys.” They did this to make COMPLETELY SURE that the audience did not mistake pure, selfless love for any other flavor of love, be it familial or romantic or whatever. And it is not a bad thing to get that point across clearly. Anna had to very clearly choose to help Elsa over herself (which Kristoff would do), and Elsa very clearly had to be helped by a love that was not romantic.

Then I also have a response to your ideas about the minor characters. About Hans… Hans did have a major function in the story. Hans was necessary to put Elsa and the kingdom in danger, so that Anna could sacrifice herself and teach Elsa how to love. Hans was necessary in the beginning to establish Anna as a character full of love and Elsa as a character unwilling to accept it. Hans is also the villain because then we see that he is a person filled to the brim with selfishness, and we only understand that because we understand how he manipulated Anna, our beacon of selflessness. The selfish villain is defeated by the love that Anna shows for Elsa, and therefore Elsa learns how to free the kingdom from the even bigger villain, which is the ice (which is actually herself.) This smaller selfless vs. selfish conflict teaches Elsa how to love and clear the ice.

Olaf the snowman also had an important role. His ideas about the world and his joys about summer all involve his own death. Olaf is optimistic and wants what’s best for the world, unaware of what’s best for himself. He wants spring to come back to the kingdom even though it will kill him. Olaf also begins melting in front of the fire while cheering up Anna and states “some people are worth melting for.” This is very important. This introduces the idea of ultimate selflessness to the audience’s mind. We see a more minor character start to die for someone else, and therefore when we see Anna do it for Elsa, we are not surprised. It doesn’t seem unprecedented or random because we’ve seen it already. Olaf is there to tell the audience what values they need to keep in mind in order to see them in Anna, and therefore see how Anna ultimately changes the heart of Elsa. It’s all about Elsa.

I do agree, however, that Sven didn’t seem to serve any point other than a logical one. I guess they needed someone to pull the sleigh, and they wouldn’t want to make some random reindeer that we never see again. Kristoff also had a logical purpose and not as much a thematic one, so his character is a bit flatter.

Okay. Next, the setting. I disagree that it was unnecessarily huge. I actually think it was a surprisingly small set for a Disney film. The three basic locations are the castle, the mountain, and the ice castle. We need the castle and the ice castle to be separate locations. Anna needs a home full of life to protect, and Elsa needs refuge that represents her inability to let people in. They have to be disconnected because they represent two vastly different things. It means something when Anna ventures out to Elsa’s refuge, and it means something when Elsa is forcibly taken back to the kingdom and can’t be alone anymore. We need the space between those things to make them harder to access from each other. Having the ice castle be inside the regular castle, well… complicates things. That makes a completely different story. Then Elsa wouldn’t be able to run away, which is pretty thematically important.

On the note of the beginning of the film. I think the flashback sequence was included because the story is about Elsa, not about Anna, and the flashback sequence is where we begin to see why Elsa shuts people out. She shuts people out because she hurt someone she loved and that scared her. This is vital, vital information! This is our entire exposition! Beginning at Elsa’s coronation would make Elsa’s ice magic into a twist, which would hurt Elsa’s story. Her ice magic is a symbolic tool. The audience needs to see how her ice magic makes her afraid. We can’t see this if the film begins at Elsa’s coronation.

I do agree that the trolls and the Kristanna relationship are both not really necessary. We did need the trolls to tell us that “true love heals a frozen heart,” however. We also needed Kristoff and Anna to be in SOME sort of relationship so that Anna can choose Elsa over it in the climax. This is not a dumb reason, but I agree that it’s harder to be okay with.

So then there’s your thoughts on the dialogue. I’ll admit I don’t quite understand where you think the dialogue has fallen flat. If you look at the story from the point of view of seflishness vs. selflessness, I do see the characters /acting/ on those ideas quite a bit. Yes, there are those two moments in the music that you pointed out, but I don’t think those moments represent the dialogue of the entire screenplay. I can see the conflict quite clearly without even thinking about the dialogue, just based on the main actions.

So finally we arrive at the theme. I should hope I’ve given the idea that I think the theme is different from what you guys think it is. “Theme” is a really vague term, so I tend to not use it when talking about stories. I much prefer things like “main point” or “change of the character.” It was indeed, in my opinion, about love, and all the characters acted quite accordingly to their viewpoints about love. Elsa feared it until the climax and acted that way. To show us how this is unusual and worth changing, Anna embraced it, even in the very beginning. We especially see this contrast when Anna wants to get married and Elsa refuses to allow it. The main point was not “what true love is,” the main point was a person learning how to love again.



Adam’s Response

Hey Emma, Thanks for this response! It’s a bummer you had to put it in a message, I wish the comment section was catered more to in-depth conversation. That way everyone would be able to read and further discuss the film.

Firstly, I’d like to address your concern that we’ve missed the point and “a lot of people on youtube listening”. I could be reading it wrong, but the way you say it makes it seem like a religion. Like we’re spreading our ideas of this movie and converting people to our side…which I assure you is not the case. We’re just trying to create discussion about story, we’re not saying we’re right, just that “this is what we think and here are our points on why we think that”. People disagreeing and challenging our ideas is half of it, how are we to become better story tellers if everyone is on our side? So I further question, even if our entire argument is wrong, is it bad that we’ve started the discussion?

Secondly, We are looking at the film in two very different lights and will not come to an actual conclusion if we stick to them. Much of what you said was explaining and justifying the purpose of specific elements in the film. For instance; Hans, we’re aware that in the plot that took place in Frozen he is an essential character. He has very specific reasons to why he’s in the film, as you mentioned, and without him those events wouldn’t have taken place and the film would fall apart. But that’s not what we’re saying…Our whole argument is based on the idea of, “when we left the theater, we were dissatisfied…why?” and everything we say is trying to figure why we felt dissatisfied. So when we concluded the story should have been simplified to focus more on the sisters and their love, inherently that would change the plot of the film. Concerning Hans, his goal to take over the kingdom is irrelevant and extra to the idea of the sister’s love, therefore in our simplified idea of the film, he could have been cut. But yes, in the plot of frozen, he serves a very important purpose. But at the end of the day, if we just talk about why he is in the story that doesn’t make me feel the movie is any better, which is subjective sure, but films evoke emotional reactions, and entertaining and engaging are two reactions that we did not feel while watching frozen. So we wanted to know why. So again, when you say that making the story within the castle would change the story…yes, that’s what we’re attempting to do.

Concerning your argument:
I do though still have a problem with your model of the story. I feel you are forcing it to be what you want it to be. Even if that is what the writers intended, I don’t think it comes out in the actual film. How can this be a story about Elsa? She’s only in like a fourth of the movie. I still stand by my point that we don’t even know Elsa. Try to describe who Elsa is without using physical details. I came up with she’s cautious and like’s to be alone, shown by her locking herself away to not hurt Anna and the whole “Let it go” song…If you come up with anymore please let me know (I would not say she’s selfish, which I’ll talk about in a sec). But that’s hardly enough characteristics for me to know her. And if we don’t spend enough time with her to even get to know her, how can we CARE about any sort of change in her. Saying the MOVIE IS ABOUT Elsa’s change is ignoring the three-fourths of the film that we spend with Anna wrestling with what makes a suitable romantic relationship. The reason that’s there is to create misdirection: They make the audience think “an act of TRUE LOVE” is a true love’s kiss (romantic love), but when it turns out to be Anna’s sacrifice it’s about (Sacrificial love). WHICH, I would be fine with redefining our previous ideas of the movie being about sisterly familial love, for the idea that it’s saying true love is sacrificial (selfless, as you say) love. But, the nature of that love is familial; it doesn’t go any deeper than that. The reason WHY Anna loves Elsa is solely on the fact she is her sister. Therefore the movie is about their love as sisters. Which is shallow at best, this is our main argument: that we don’t experience their love for each other. We KNOW Anna loves Elsa from “do you want to build a snow man”, but we don’t have a lot of time to feel to what extent she loves her. So we can only relate on the level of familial love.

So with that being said your statement that “The film’s point is not about the sisterly love between Anna and Elsa, it’s about Elsa learning to open up and let people in after fearing them for her entire life” can’t reign true. For everything I said up there. As well, I don’t understand your statement “after fearing them for her entire life”. It is not clear anywhere in this film that Elsa is afraid of anybody. What is clear is she is afraid of HURTING people. More specifically, hurting Anna. Which leads into my second argument.

You put a lot of weight on the idea of Elsa being a selfish character, “concerned with her own wellbeing”. Which again, I don’t see in the film. It seems rather selfless to me for her to lock herself in a room for 10 years just to protect the ones around her. She’s not concerned for her own wellbeing she’s concerned with Anna’s wellbeing, afraid of herself. Which actually complicates the film immensely and starts breaking itself down. Love is the resolution, it’s what melts Anna. But Elsa locks herself away to protect Anna…because she loves her. But if she loves her, would that not solve her ice problem? If anything I can see her fear of hurting Anna is a barrier to her expressing her love, but it’s not clear she’s afraid of it. I can definitely see your points about her being afraid of love and turning to selfishness, that lines up with “love melting the ice” and would therefore have a better payoff. The problem is I don’t think that’s actually apparent in the film. If you still disagree I need specific scenes that display Elsa’s selfishness and how she “fears love”.

On that note you bring up Hans and the scene where Anna and him want to get married and its importance in showing the contrast of Elsa’s and Anna’s feeling of love. This I very much disagree with. Elsa is saying what we’re all saying; you’ve only known him for a day…that’s logical thinking, not fearing love. Kristoph even says the same thing to her…does he fear love too? Your point about Olaf is really cool, and I’m glad you brought it up. I hadn’t thought about that before you mentioned it. Personally, I thought that scene came off shallow because of how shallow Olaf’s relationship is with everyone, we’ve known him for like a day. But in your model of what the story was supposed to be about, that’s a really strong scene and I’m all for it. Again I just don’t think the selfish vs. selfless model is apparent. Anna’s sacrificial love stems from a shallow familial love. We’re told that she loves Elsa just because she’s her sister, so her sacrifice isn’t grounded in any emotional experience that we have to their relationship. Therefore, it comes off weak and dissatisfying.

For the Dialogue I have already revised my previous thoughts. After a second viewing of the film I couldn’t find anything that seemed overly simple outside of the songs. So yeah, I was wrong there, the dialogue is fine.

Everything else you mention falls under the lines of “why it is important to the progression of the plot” which again doesn’t make the movie better; it just reveals the reasoning behind it being in the film. Everything in a film is there for a reason, especially animated films…that doesn’t necessarily make it emotionally engaging, entertaining, or impactful.

Lastly, Elsa can be the main character and I’m convinced it would have been a more “emotionally engaging, entertaining, or impactful” film. If Elsa was the main focus rather than Anna, we could have seen her struggle and fear of hurting Anna more, plus a longing to connect to her sister. It’s easier to get across that Anna doesn’t understand why she’s getting pushed out so she wouldn’t have to be the focus. Than from Elsa’s perspective you see Anna’s continual struggle to connect with her sister, which would only push Elsa’s regret more. So than when Anna does sacrifice herself, I think it would have been significantly more powerful, because now we see from Elsa’s perspective her confusion to “why would she still love me after all these years of pushing her away?” And then Elsa sees that her fear has been a barrier to expressing love to Anna. And that this love thing actually is what solved her lack of control for the Ice and that it’s been her getting in the way of herself all these years…I think that sounds so much more emotionally impactful. We’re not saying every story needs to have the character of change as the main character; just this one would be stronger if she was. Thanks again for your response, I’d love to hear any further points you have or if I’m making up or assuming too much of anything! Also, is it cool if we post your message and this response somewhere public to encourage this kind of long form discussion?

Good luck in your future film and storytelling endeavors!
adam (and Austin in spirit)