there are disney romances with less disney romance endings than this

I saw the Beauty and the Beast remake for the second time, and afterward I was like, goddamn it, I’ve got to go home and make a post about how it’s a good movie. I’ve gotta.

I liked it even better the second time. There’s only like three things I could possibly nitpick about it, but I feel so nice about this movie after the shitshow that was La Belle et la Bete 2014 that I don’t even want to be a critic.

It was good!! It’s my exact shit, I admit it freely.

the screenplay is fantastic - surprisingly funny and so nicely rooted in its allusions to its source materials, referencing not only the 90′s Disney version, but all these different versions of beauty and the beast that came before

  • -> Maurice saying “huh!” and staring at the disembodied hands holding the candelabrum outside the Beast’s Castle doors, straight out of the 1946 version
  • -> Belle leading the Beast toward a skittish horse for the first time in years, a scene straight out of Robin McKinley’s Beauty
  • -> the “strangely cultured lion-man,” all the Shakespeare/poetry readings, straight from the 80′s TV show Beauty and the Beast

What I’m saying is, they did their research, not just about the Disney version, but about how to merge what everybody knows about it with all the versions that have ever been made. It was so nice. It made me feel very good.

every character has this added emotional depth and sense of realism:

  • -> the rare care taken with exploring the Beast and Belle - their relationships to their fathers, their relationships to their dead mothers, their shared feeling of estrangement from everyone they know, their shared interests and mirroring body language. Everything was so good.
  • -> the thematic element of gendered intergenerational abuse © the Beast’s father
  • -> Belle’s introduction as innovative and proactive, her teaching the girl to read because she has extra time due to her intellectual innovations
  • -> the welcome change to the Beast’s personality/interests, making him appear (imo) to be much more Belle’s match
  • -> the nice time spent on the developing relationship, and the teleportation to Paris to give them something to bond over: YES
  • -> that the Beast was a bad adult and genuinely, 100% responsible for the curse, and not cursed when he was a 11-year-old child
  • -> the Beast gets a song, which isn’t the one he sings in the Broadway version for some reason, but I mean… I’m never going to say “no” to a male lead singing about how he’ll wait in a tower forever to be saved by the dashing heroine, that’s not a thing that I will ever do
  • -> Maurice’s poignant song at his introduction, setting the great tone for how likable and lovable he would be as a character. Also: his reaction to the denizens of the castle being “NOPE” was the best ever
  • -> the servants’ deeper relationships and their sense of loss and responsibility for the situation
  • -> the explanation of the town’s strange relationship with the castle made very clear
  • -> the way the townspeople didn’t all seem to be small-minded during the first song, they all seemed to have different opinions about Belle
  • -> Luke Evan’s Gaston is the best thing that ever happened to me - at once more believable and frightening than he’d ever been before, but still somehow just as hilarious. That Gaston almost murders Maurice at one point finally differentiated his character as a different moral creature from the Beast, which never really happens to my satisfaction in the 1991 version. (When I watch the 1991 film, I always wonder what makes Gaston so different from the Beast, especially with all the stark parallels, like them both wrongfully imprisoning Belle’s father, and I’m stuck with that question pretty unanswered at the end. In this new movie, Gaston is a genuine murderous scoundrel, and the Beast openly apologizes for ever thinking Belle’s father was a criminal, so I’m less puzzled.) 
  • -> LeFou was outstanding, in every way improved from the original. So funny. I loved the depth his moral compass gave that section of the plot, and I liked that he recovered at the end.

I don’t know, it was like every character was dunked in a little bit more of a delicious Character Complexity Potion. Pretty much everybody was a little bit more 3-dimensional, and the movie had a great heart to it.

the fucking great way parts of the movie felt like watching one of my wizard romance books. The Beast was super charming, when he’d never been amusing before. His looks bothered me in the trailers, but I changed my mind as the movie went on. And he had that perfect Beast voice, like a walking incarnation of all the gentler book versions of the Beast who had rarely made their way to cinema before. He was so fake-petty-mean and sardonic, his little comments… I don’t know, the Beast is funny as shit in this movie. I love this dude, I could see why Belle would like him. I believed the romance, I had my pulse on that romance, I was rooting for them. And that’s something that’ll make or break it.

minor list of things I was less impressed by: 

  • -> the transformation scene with someone else in the room (better than the 2014 version, but still, there were already so many things going on in that sequence with the servants taking the limelight, that the enchantress being there too was distracting as shit!!)
  • -> autotune, but it didn’t bother me that much
  • -> that in the year of our lord 2017 they still feel the need for the Beast to transform into a human (oh well lol)
  • -> I wanted Belle to sing “Home” from the Broadway musical, but I guess I’m never getting that wish!!

A few other things too, but I’d have to watch it again. I think I will do that.

anonymous asked:

I think the only romance in this trilogy will be between Finn and Kmt's character. Rey and Kylo are either going to have a familial or platonic relationship. (because Disney knows a lot of people would complain about the first female protagonist of Star Wars having a romance, and worse, with the villain.)

You know, I guess I’m one of those people who’s just very positive about Reylo because I believe it will be romantic and mutual. But seeing as how things ended between Rey and Kylo in TFA maybe the idea of the villain’s love being reciprocated by the hero is a little too optimistic.
Or not.
After all, Star Wars at its heart is an optimistic tale and I guess I take that as a cue to be liberal and optimistic with my predictions, which I guess I have every right to be. But you could be right anon; Reylo could turn out to be platonic in the end. But I know why I ship Reylo and what drew me to it in the first place.
Moving on to your point about Disney being worried about what people think, I’m sure they know what they’re dealing with and I’m sure they knew when they bought Star Wars off George Lucas, that it’s the kind of franchise that is bound to attract at least some controversy no matter what.
I bet you George Lucas thought long and hard about whether or not to make Anakin murder those younglings, or whether or not to make him choke his pregnant wife in a movie that is supposedly aimed at children. But at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because it all just served a story that we knew was going to end on an optimistic note. Anakin would be saved by the power of unconditional love. That was George Lucas’s vision and he went through with it. It was controversial to say the least and some people complained that the portrayal of Anakin’s descent into darkness made his redemption less believable. But that’s not the point of Star Wars.
Star Wars is not some revenge fantasy. It is, to quote George Lucas, “Love people, that’s all Star Wars is”. Luke saved his father (the villain) with the power of love. Well, he didn’t exactly ‘save’ him, Vader redeemed himself through his own actions, and Luke just showed him the light and was willing to give him a chance. So why can’t that be the same with Rey? Why does the heroine have to be treated differently and why isn’t she allowed to love romantically, if that’s what she chooses? Why can’t her love be someone else’s guiding light? Of course she doesn’t need a romance, but that doesn’t mean she won’t want one. I’ll never forget how Rey was introduced to us, as a lonely young woman who was literally starved of not just food, but of love as well. She is someone who is searching for a sense of belonging (which I’m guessing means love, because that’s what she’s expecting from her family, who are never coming back) so if that love comes in the form of a romance, so what? If we look at Star Wars as a myth (which it is by the way) love in whatever form carries equal power whether it be familial, platonic or romantic. So if Rey is allowed to love Kylo platonically, why is that love not allowed to be romantic, if all love is equal and is supposed to be a much more powerful force than sexual desire?  Also, let’s not forget how JJ Abrams mentions in his TFA commentary that Rey will get the belonging she seeks, eventually, but not in the way she expects, which is something worth thinking about.
And as for Disney’s stance on villain/hero romance, one of the novels from the new Disney canon, Dark Disciple, features a romance between a hero and a villain and this beautiful foreword by Katie Lucas:
“At its core, Dark Disciple is a story of redemption; a story of how people can be unbelievably broken, and yet find a way to rebuild despite the odds. All of us are given chances time and time again to transform our lives, and it is our responsibility to seize those opportunities before they disappear.“
(I just feel like this sums up Star Wars for me)
I don’t think Disney cares if the inevitable happens and a few people on Twitter or Tumblr or a few journalists end up bitching about the direction of the story. I’m sure they’re used to it. They’ll just shrug their shoulders and then proceed to collect the millions of dollars they will undoubtedly get out of this trilogy. But at the same time that doesn’t mean that they’ll accept a terribly executed story. I believe we have no reason to worry about the execution of a potential romance between Rey and Kylo. There is a whole storygroup devoted to the sequel trilogy at Lucasfilm who’ve probably spent the last few years mapping out its direction. They set up an amazing, powerful dynamic between Rey and Kylo in TFA, they know who Rey and Kylo are and I’m fairly positive they know exactly what they’re doing. Maybe a romance will happen, maybe it won’t, but I’m certain about one thing: Rey and Kylo will be very important to each other going forward.


The Best about Kristanna

After you see Frozen for the first time, you may wonder if Kristoff and Anna are truly meant for each other. At first thought you might think that they are polar opposites, that they are foils to each other, and that they couldn’t be more opposite. Let’s take some of their differences into account:

  • Kristoff grew up in the mountains, while Anna grew up in a castle.
  • Kristoff is an ice harvester, while Anna is a princess.
  • Kristoff was orphaned as a child, while Anna’s parents died when she was a teenager.
  • Kristoff enjoys being alone and away from people, while Anna does not.
  • Anna loves to meet people, converse with them, and make friends out of them, while Kristoff does not.
  • Anna is never afraid to hide her nature: she is always perky and bubbly, but Kristoff puts on an act of being cold, cranky, and rude.
  • Anna dreams of finding romance, while Kristoff couldn’t care less and has no experience with love.

So those are just some of the most notable differences between the couple. However, if you think about it some more, you’ll realize that they are very similar, but in different ways at the same time.

  • They are both shy and awkward, but in different ways. They both say “Wait, what?”, but while Anna is awkward almost all the time, Kristoff becomes awkward when he starts to fall for Anna.
  • They are both very caring and selfless, although Kristoff tries to show it less (initially). However, this trait becomes more obvious when he twice rushes back to Arendelle, worried for Anna’s life.
  • They are both very dedicated, but about different things. Anna is dedicated to finding Elsa and bringing her home to thaw Arendelle, while Kristoff is very dedicated to his ice business (then he becomes more dedicated to Anna in the above said example).
  • And of course, they are both very stubborn regarding different things, too. Anna refuses to give up on Elsa, while Kristoff initially refuses to help Anna find Elsa (then this is demonstrated when, again, of course, hurries back to Arendelle).

Like the trolls say, Kristoff and Anna are both fixer uppers who have flaws and are rough around the edges, though in different ways. Yet despite all of that, Kristoff and Anna truly are perfect for each other. They have enough in common to understand each other, and their most obvious differences complement each other perfectly, giving each other exactly what the other person needs.

Anna affected Kristoff by uncovering his soft side. At the beginning, Kristoff is cranky, rude, and grumpy almost all the time. He doesn’t trust Anna’s judgment about her hurried engagement. But then he changes. The more time he spends with her and gets to know her, the more she affects him. Her kindness and optimism makes him become the kind, selfless, and caring man that he truly is. She helps him realize that there are good people in the world, that he doesn’t have to be untrustworthy and cynical, and that reindeer aren’t better than all people.

And remember that Kristoff affects Anna, too: he grounds her. At the beginning, Anna is obsessed with finding true love. When she meets Kristoff, she babbles on and on about Hans and that they have true love. But Kristoff teaches her how to be more realistic, that love isn’t all moonlit walks and romantic dances, that it can happen in ways you may never have expected. From her experience with Hans, she realizes that love cannot be rushed and that she has take things one step at a time.

I think one of the strongest points about Kristoff and Anna’s relationship is how it developed. They couldn’t have been more different and started off as acquaintances. But they learned to rely on each other and got along, realizing that they made a good team. Their relationship then grew into friendship, and while it may not be true love by the end, they can definitely have that one day.

To me, that’s one of the best things to see. With Hans and Anna, it was all “instant love” and didn’t develop past that, plus it turned out to be false. But since love does not happen so fast, it’s best to see a relationship develop as a friendship first, then it blossoms into love.

With that being said, along with their similarities and complementary differences, Kristoff and Anna’s relationship is realistic and very relatable. It is one of the best fictional romances I have ever seen.

And hey, on the side, Kristoff and Anna never say “I love you” to each other, but who says you have to say it in order to prove it? ;)

Thank you all, and Kristanna forever! :D <3

  • Disney Films: Often animated, coming-of-age, romance driven musicals, developed from pre-existing literature and often featuring a bunch of adorable animal sidekicks. In common cases like Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, and Aladdin, the basic structure of the story is main couple meet, somebody in the couple saves the other persons life, there's a culminating moment where they dance/sing at each other and it's beautiful, some evil baddie tries to screw everything up, and there's a moment where you're absolutely sure one of them is dead/going to die, only for them to make it out in the end. They kiss, end of story.
  • No.6: An animated, coming-of-age, romance driven story, featuring original music that is sung. It draws heavily from classic literature and features no less than a dozen adorable animal sidekicks. The basic story structure is Shion and Nezumi meet, they save each others lives, there's a culminating moment where they dance/sing at each other and it's beautiful. Some evil city-state tries to screw everything up, and there's a moment where you're absolutely sure both of them are dead/going to die, only for them to make it out in the end. They kiss, end of story.
  • Me: I rest my case.
Round the World (and home again)

25 Days Christmas Romance Challenge || Day 20

Character A returns to their birth-town for the holidays. Character B is their estranged childhood best friend.

(header by the incredibly sweet and talented @katie-dub)
This is kinda short and kinda different and kinda weird but I hope you like it.

Round the World (and home again); ~ 1, 400 words; FF.NET || AO3

It’s December and Emma has never seen the sky that angry at the world. But, to be honest, she doesn’t spend that much time gazing at the sky. She is too busy throwing clothes in a duffel bag.

She is, clearly, without a doubt, certifiably, insane.

Another pair of jeans for sure.

She is absolutely out of her mind.

And her sneakers.

She is not considering the consequences and all the possible ways this could blow in her face.

And an extra pair of socks never hurts, right?

She has been aching all day at the memory of his face when she said she won’t be there to send him off and now-

Maybe two extra pairs?

She is not considering or thinking or rationalizing or analyzing. She is going with her gut. Heart. Whatever.

Fuck it.

She zips up her duffel, takes the stairs two at a time and consequently almost falls on her face. She wrenches the Bug’s door open, throws her bag in the back and breaks every traffic law on her way to the docks.

She misses him.


“Did you go home?”


“Did you go to Ireland first?”

“Ah, no. No, I thought… a journey doesn’t start at home, it ends there, right?”

“… Right. I mean, I don’t… I guess.”


“So where did you start?”


Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Disney awkwardly seems to have hit its "romantic love isn't the be-all-and-end-all" and "we now have PoC starring roles" phases at the same time.

I mean I feel like we are getting a head of ourselves right now with this. Like zootopia didn’t have real Characters of color despite its message and Moana is the first princess of color in 7 years (other than Elena but many people are putting her in a different category because she is TV only). I mean previously that’s less of a gap but I am not going praise them for that. I’m very excited about Moana!! But she is a long time coming, all the princesses of color are and until I see a real change in not going to praise Disney for it. (Like that post that says I expect the Disney store to change into the Moana store like how it was the frozen store for a good year. Then I’ll praise). After the movie’s release I will be watching very closely to see what happens next. Because Big Hero Six marketing died very fast, which you can say is because it wasn’t a princess movie. But then princess Tiana gets a fraction of the merch and the princesses of color before her (exclude jasmine) are rarely ever seen. If they do this to Moana I will be incredibly disappointed but not surprised based on the history. But I really do hope she gets the Frozen treatment

I have a lot of feelings personally about the love interest thing though all of which are personal and not political but to boil it down I’m glad for it! I’m glad that Moana is going to get to just be a heroine without being tied down by the trope. But I also have nothing against the princesses that did end up with a prince. Like Tiana if my favorite princess and Naveen is considered the first prince with a personality. So in my opinion I feel like the princes and princesses need to have real actual feelings for each other and the story needs to still make sense and not be ruined by the romance. I think it’s okay with romance or without, but in Moana’s case I think she is going benefit from not having a prince because her story does not need it.

So I guess TLDR: until I see a real change from Disney I am not going to hop of board praising them for adding another princess of color which just like all the others was a long time coming and we haven’t seen yet if she is going to end up like what they did with Tiana. And I have a very mixed feelings about the romance thing, I think it’s great that not ever princess needs a prince but I also think that the romance isn’t also wrong

-Mod P

anonymous asked:

1/4 I read Lily's article, and felt nauseous. Not because of the article. No, Lily was on point as usual. It's for what could have been. Much as alluded to in the article, the show has become nothing more than a shameless marketing vehicle for Disney. The whoring out of Frozen is the crowning achievement of that process. This show had SO much potential. A fantastic (although admittedly not perfect) first season, that suggested a truely modern interpretation of fairy tales.

2/4 But to see what it’s descended too? The utter drivel. The almost contempt that the writing, and by extension the writers, seem to have for the audience. It’s treatment of women (an almost laughable idea given this show trumpeted its female centric view when it launched), how it treats its fans, LGBTQ fans especially, and not mention issues around race - So many Heroic White People, so many POC baddies, so little time - and the racist biology/adoption farce (a whole other diatribe).

¾ As to Lily’s comments re Regina & Emma in the ep, what your thoughts? Are the writers monstrously stupid? Maybe they think they are being kind, throwing out some crumbs? Or is it a giant FUCK YOU aimed at those who dared question their hetero vision? They must know how it looks, how they film things. Are they truly that incompetent? I already KNOW they are ignorant.

4/4 That scene with them speaking through the door? I stared thinking, “they are not seriously pulling this shit?”. I felt almost sick. It’s remarkable, isn’t it, how much of the stuff they heavily promote (CS & OQ for example), and ‘intend’ is so utterly unconvincing and hollow, & the ‘unintentional’ Regina/Emma stuff just rings so true. Watch out world. Adam Horowitz will slip on a banana peel one day and invent a cure for cancer or aids by accident. Jfc.

First note of clarification—I’ve noticed that Adam Horowitz gets most of the flack around these parts. I think it’s because our name for the twin producers isn’t sticking. They are AdamEds or Adeds or Aeds or ds — or $$@$$ if you prefer symbols.

But deep breaths now, as we try to remain emotionless and objective. Impossible tasks. I have honestly wondered much of what you’re wondering, Anon. Do they hate us? Are they megalomaniacs on little horses, trying to make themselves feel tall? Just how much of OUaT is a giant explicative at the audience? Or, how much I’ve interpreted as a ‘go to hell’ when really it’s been a ‘we’re being overly clever and META’. At this point, Hook is all but crawling on the ground, leaving behind a puddle of slime, and screeching like that man-creature in Gray Matter (Stephen King short story, I highly recommend it). So it’s almost like horrendous fan service. Hey, hate Hook, well here, hate him even more! Is it fan service? Or is it meta commentary on the disgusting nature (something like this) of the classic Disney prince?

Those who dared question their hetero vision were sorta kinda told to go watch reruns of The L Word last season with that horrendous finale, weren’t they? So why the sudden switch back? They even had Frozen, right, so they didn’t need their femslash followers? And yet the baiting seems to have gotten even weirder. For some reason, Frozen has this huge LGBT following (none of us here have watched it…oh, oh, I’m speaking only for three of us? Two of us…ok, fine, one of us then) and the show had a chance to snag that following and, somehow, get back their previously rejected SQ following (it only took one thousand dollar sweater purchase!) with some rather rare PR work on the actresses’ part.

Is this as underhanded as Ryan Murphy’s yearly LOL at Lesbians? Or is it a sign of things to come—gently mishandled queerbaiting rather than enormously mishandled queerbaiting? Disney said to play nice? Was ABC tired of being told that they were a bunch of rape culture enthusiasts with weird Hook and/or lizard fetishes? We’re trying to be optimists here (in our whimsical sitting room, surrounded by faded Charlie’s Angel’s posters) but they’re giving us less and less to work with.

But hey, keep calling them on this stuff. Because when Frozen’s ratings dunk into a toilet over someone’s (whose? Eddy’s?) Hook obsession or Hood retcon, they’ll need some honest feedback. They’re getting away with manipulation of their audience on a level I’ve never, ever seen! And all because some fans like shiny things? It’s not our fault that we all like shiny things, it’s part of immersing oneself in pop entertainment to too-great a degree in the post-industrial post-technological age (or…when is this?) BUT to refuse to think it through beyond that, or, worse yet, to just keep getting caught in the web? Well, I personally feel really sorry for anybody who finds themselves duped again. Especially if it’s all about the fluffy fanfiction and not even just about the show itself.

That’s why we’re opening up our backyard to any who want to discuss it.

So on to your other points. If making Regina all about some scruffy idiot she kissed a few times is contempt, then…yes, no, yes it just is. I was going to add to that thought but there’s not much to add. The writing seems to be tanking faster than they can land big franchises to ruin, and why is that, do you think? I mean, the writing has been pretty bad at key times over the whole of the series, don’t get me wrong, but the dialogue is absolutely painful now. And the CGI just isn’t worth it, because while it was utterly ridiculous S1—it was the layered storytelling that kept us on our toes, no?

So now when you see a video of Kristin (from “Watch With Kristin” of E! online) and her two 3/5yo-s’ reactions to “Frozen on TV” and characters becoming flesh from toons (link) it is kind of an eye-opener. Is this their new target group? (Which hey, it worked if they got 2+mil kindergartens, in numbers?) Because their levels of writing surely fulfil that criteria!

So we’re wondering now, apart from being a cash cow (what with hints of possible spin-offs and hence Disney lording over this one and not allowing them too much ‘creativity’ to change things—hence the toons become flesh, and we get a yawn-worthy story?) is this a terrible capitalist conspiracy to wipe the minds of the young and replace their thoughts with…well, with these basic banalities? Some of us (who actually got hooked on intelligent, revolutionary fairytale re-imagining promise, back in S1) have day jobs that involve thinking, and the power of thought is apparently diminishing with each Sunday evening. And it’s not okay to just say ‘well then go away’ because who will monitor the stupidity? Why on earth is Emma so invested in Hook? Why is Regina so invested in Robin Hood? Why can’t they just fight demons and other bad things and use magic to take on the latest invention? Money signs won’t last that much longer just because of Frozen. Because bottom line, if they fixed the damn writing they’d have a loyal and long-term audience on their hands, not just the Twi-idiots.

And why is it so brilliant and beautiful right when Emma and Regina and Henry act like the dorky nerd!Family they are? Banana peels and disease cures indeed.

(Not that they’d take our advice but the points have to be made.)

Also, yes, they are increasingly making their (racist? anti-adoption? sexist, as only female villains don’t get their happy endings?) attempts at removing Henry from Regina’s care into a layered mess, as though people might forget the whole thing and finally give in. IS most of this show about making the audience finally just cave to the writers’ racist rape culture heterosexist fantasies? And are they wrestling otherwise intelligent minds into submission?

Honestly, we here feel as if we were held hostage at times by this show, and not just because we choose to take on its horrendous subtext, but because it pulls us in with the occasional glimmer of beauty and coherence and (for some of us anyway) previously made promises of a token Lesbian or Gay couple. Which now has to be Regina and Emma, even moreso after this premiere and the whole door thing because no, having them exchange BFFsForevah necklaces will infuriate their core audience at this point. Because wouldn’t that be a convenient solution offered by to the ‘multishipper’ crowds who suggested the Solomonic solution of “SQ brotp”? Everyone happy, no? Well, sorry but–no. Because most of the sane (or well, non-hypocritical ones anyway) find it insulting. And now when people were leaving, or readying to leave, to get pulled back in like this? Whack, the tease is so goood! Which brings me to your question: is it cruelty, this particular baiting? Why, is what we keep wondering, why? Why now? Why not leave it alone, after all the “not planned, sorry for leading you on for three years” interviews? Did corporate tell them to just play nicely with everyone, all at once?

My answer to that last question? Yes. Because corporate wants its big Gay$$Disney days and it doesn’t want its boats rocked (well, maybe). So how do you make a mess that drags everybody back aboard? Some well timed PR yes, some baiting, sure, some ongoing destructive and terrible canon ‘romance’ (if yanking your gf around, following her needlessly, and staring at her a lot counts as romance) and some hints of meta analysis (change the book, challenge the ending) to keep even the most cynical of us wondering… maybe? This time?

Emma Swan, get thee a restraining order for that sniveling lying piece of scum! And the rest of you, get thinking because you’re going to need to figure this all out for us.

But Frozen isn’t the first !

I think I might just have solved the “but Frozen is not the first movie to teach us girls don’t need a prince” conundrum.

See, I read one too many comment waving the Mulan flag on Youtube today and it got me thinking, yes, there was Mulan, and there was Brave so how come so many people insist that Frozen is the “first Disney movie” to tell us princesses don’t need princes to save them ?
The more I though about it, the more I realized that Frozen is the first movie that did go there although it did not have to.

What is Mulan about ? A girl defies gender roles to save her father and ends up saving her country. The romance between Zhang and Mulan in secondary to the storyline. Mulan is a movie about courage, honour, military strategy, gender roles and trust, but not about love.

Brave is about a girl who accidentally turns her mother into a bear when trying to get away from parental expectations. It is a story about mother-daughter relations, bravery (obviously -_-’), gender roles and family. But not about love.

Frozen, is about two girls, one of them has power and loses controle of them. The other gets mortally wounded by said powers can only be saved by “an act of true love”. It is a story about, family, bravery and love. “True Love” is a the  very center of Anna’s (and Krisoff’s) quest for the second half of the movie.

Now let’s imagine Hans never went after Elsa on the frozen fjord, Kristoff did run back to Anna and unmade Elsa’s spell with True Love Kiss, and then Anna went to Elsa and calmed her down or whatever. It think it would not have been a bad ending, an expected one, yes, but not a bad one.
It would have made Frozen an okay movie, about the princess falling for the (un)expected non charming guy (see pretty much any popular teenage romance on TV at the moment for further reference). It would still have made for a pretty neat, funny, beautifully animated movie with catchy songs and relatable characters, though probably less successful than it actually was. (Try to imagine, a world in which Frozen was just your regular pretty enjoyable Disney movie, replaced by the next one the following year – hard, I know, but just try.)

Now try to imagine a prince charming waltzing in and saving the day for Mulan and Merida, it would totally ruin the points of both movies.

Frozen could have worked without the « no prince » thing, but the creators decided to go there even though they didn’t have to and that’s what made it brilliant. That’s what made the audience go “Finally Disney !”

Frozen is not the first movie in which a princess doesn’t need a prince to save her, but it is the first movie that deliberately plays with this trope, puts it at the center of the story and then completely obliterates it, twice.
First we get Hans : looks like a prince, smells like a prince (probably), turn up to be a total asshole. Trope thwarted.
Then we get Kristoff, looks like a caveman, smells like a reindeer,  acts like a doofus, could be a prince charming in disguise. But does he save the princess ? NO. Her sister does !

So you get half an hour of two adorkables idiots traipsing around through snow looking for an act of true love to save the princess, and then BAM ! Sister’s love !  Did you all expect true love to be of the (heterosexual) romantic kind ? Sure you did ! that what we’ve been fed all our lives, only to get bitch slapped by Frozen, saying “Hey, true love can come in so many shapes, why limit it to romance ?”

And that, my dears, is me, still thinking way too much about Frozen, two years after its original release….

anonymous asked:

I really love your rants. Can I ask a massive one about a bunch of Disney/animation ships? Starting from Helsa. I really would like to hear what you think about it, because i like your explanations. I'm not a shipper of either Hanna or Helsa, but I'm just curious to hear your point of view, which is always interesting to read (like what you said on Frozen and its characters and storyline). P.s.: I love your prompts/headcanon!!! You're a great artist and writer.

Awwww, first of all, thank you kind anon! <3

Sorry for taking so long, but I’ve been terribly busy…plus, i wanted to give some thought to my answers. I didn’t want to upset anyone by saying a thing the wrong way…i know how sensitive people are about this fandom -___- *sighs*

Click below for a huge rant with doodles! :D

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

omg please talk more about Ruby Slippers I saw a news thing on fb about "Once's first LBGT romance" and I was skeptical af. Plus the little trailer talked about MULAN and Ruby so I was super confused.

Thank you anon for greenlighting this and buckle up everyone else. I have a ton to say. This is a legit essay that has to go mostly under a cut. Oh, and this is JQ so if you vehemently disagree with anything said, direct the villagers with flaming torches my way. 

Now, first of all, shout out to the people who figured out the couple in this episode was going to be Red Kansas rather than Red Warrior because of the twin facts of (1) the title literally spelling it out and (2) the show being careful to use the silver slippers from the book rather than the red ones from the movie.

I know a lot of people wanted it to be Red Warrior but I kind of doubt Disney would have let that happen without a ton of pushback. Mulan’s a Disney Princess. You guys all saw the uproar that happened when they used two non-Disney characters. How much worse do you think it would have been if one of them was a prominent Disney character (who is in a canon relationship)? So, at the end of the day, I think that choice comes down to just corporate policy stuff more than anything else. If you’re not happy about that, A+E probably aren’t the ones to blame.(Although they are to blame for leaving Mulan hanging in general. Let Mulan be Happy 2k16).

Anyway, for the main part of this essay, we’re talking about the Red Kansas relationship so I’m gonna simplify things a bunch with this super scientific equation I just made up:


Simple, right? The only part I need to explain is the asterisk which stands for conventions of the genre. So, like, when you’re watching a musical and the couple meets and instantly falls in love, that asterisk compensates for lack of time and you don’t roll your eyes, you get me?

OUAT has 2 (well 1.5) of those asterisks working for it: Couple recognition and the above mentioned conventions of the genre.

Keep reading

My thoughts about Red Kansas

I care about Ruby. I really do. And I like the way Meghan brings her to life, with all her strengths and insecurities. So seeing her falling in love and being adorable about it first with Mulan and then with Snow touched me maybe more than I expected it. 

But I cannot help to think how much I could have enjoyed this story even more had I give a damn about the other half of this love story. Namely Dorothy. Because I could not care less about her. And because I am easy to please and I am most of the time sense the writers intentions pretty accurately, I have this strange feeling that the reason I did not give a damn about her was that the writers did not give a damn about her either, and they did not even try hard to make me care. Which - I find a bit sad. Wasted opportunity. 

Mind you, I am not complaining about falling in love in 2 days/one episode. We are talking about the “EF” here (more or less, since Dorothy is not from the EF, I guess her “Kansas” is a micro-realm like the 20′s where Cruelly lived or the Victorian England of Alice or the Darling family.) So falling in love at first sight is a norm here, and even if a slow-burn romance is better storytelling, we know that it is NOT OUAT’s biggest strength (understatement of the year). 

So the problem is not how quick they fall in love. The problem is that one of the characters is totally bland and unexplored. Of course, it is again, something that plagues OUAT for a long time. We have a LOT of unbalanced relationships on this show. Which again - something that comes from the fairytales too. In the fairytales there is always one character in the center and their love interest is often bland - the classic Snow White, Cindarella, Sleeping Beauty and other tales put much more emphasis on our heroine and the hero was basically there as a reward for them, not a character on their own. The more recent tales may try to bring more balance into the stories, but the imbalance is still exist. It exists in the Disney movies and it exists on OUAT too. Outlaw Queen (and Rumbelle and even Captain Swan) is a good example where one character is much better explored than the other. But as much as I wanted Robin to get more exploration, more personality, more screentime, it never bothered me that Regina was better explored. Just that they did not explore Robin in a way I wanted. But even Robin was never as flat and bland as Dorothy here. And because of this complete lack of personality and screentime I felt she really served only one purpose: being a token relationship with Ruby, two characters who are not featured in a Disney cartoon, and check with them the LGTB demand. Because sure, those people who are desperate to finally find good representation for them in this show would be happy if they get two random characters, one totally uninteresting and unexplored, seeing them falling in love and never see them again. 

I admit, the bar for any LGBT romance is pretty low right now. They were both alive at the end of the episode, none of them was a villain, their love-story was not over-sexualized, it was presented as any other love-story in the EF and no-one even blinked that it was between two women. I liked those aspects actually. I just think we could have got those same aspects with characters who have more personality and more chemistry (even Mulan and Ruby would have been better than Ruby and Dorothy). 

So as my friend @freifraufischer often says, it was a step forward, it was a tiny one, but into the right direction. Now let’s see if they can do better. 

Unjustified and unnecessary villainy of Hans in Frozen

Frozen certainly is bound to be ranked among if not the most iconic Disney creations but those that boost the company’s status in regards to universally appealing storytelling, splendidly mesmerizing and elaborately executed animation and outstandingly masterful musical numbers without a flicker of a doubt.

Sisterly dynamic and blunt, unabashedly honest and overwhelmingly realistic depiction of Elsa’s mental struggles induced by external or internal triggers and fundamentally affecting her behavior and attitude towards life and people were the vital and remarkably prominent aspects and essentials of the narrative (highlighted in a more extended detail HERE). That said, similarly to every other fictional creation in existence the film is neither immune to unfortunate flaws nor beyond scrutiny.

Sloppily presented reinforcement of a highly outdated, problematic and exclusionary “right man vs. wrong man” dichotomy there where Hans fiasco is concerned came off as implausibly frustrating.

When the same trope was resorted to in “Beauty and the Beast” regarding Beast and Gaston, although not any less trite and contrived it DID work in favor of furthering the plot and logically fitted the established, cautionary and patronizing notion of the story which can be briefly summarized as “don’t judge the book by it’s cover”. Troublesome nature of the way said concept was framed in the aforementioned movie comes from a place of how Gaston’s inexplicably groundless, one dimensional and forcibly imposed antagonism - which existed with a sole purpose of incorporating an obligatory villain into the plot - upheld and was supposed to highlight Belle’s designed “special snowflake”/morally & intellectually superior/not like those other “dumb & slutty” girls aka Bimbettes status. Seeing as BatB operates on a fairly simplistic premise Beast and Gaston being established as inevitable rivals comes across as formulaic but nonetheless relevant to representation of the crucial points of the narrative that wouldn’t have been possible to address without this arc in the first place.

Frozen, on the other hand, did NOT require a conventionally stereotypical, inherently cunning evil schemes plotting shady villain that Hans ended up being unproductively reduced to. Movie narrative was initially presented as a psychologically complex, character driven and comprehensive emotional journey for all the characters.

Story focused primarily on Elsa’s ongoing and persistently anguishing mental struggles that triggered her extraordinary powers she was first unreasonably instructed to carefully conceal only to have this misleading tactic of handling the issue backfire immensely later on. Subsequently alienating herself on behalf of others not excluding a person she loved the most - her sister.

Anna’s arc was defined by grasping the basis and essence behind Elsa’s issues, offering her a helping hand, examining and figuring out effective and practical ways to support her sister despite the perpetual stress and triggers the latter was incessantly confronted with - which often entailed harmful and nearly irreversible/ultimate destruction as in case with damaging and injuring Anna twice, second time almost fatally.

Additionally, Kristoff appeared to be a fittingly/lightheartedly exaggerated symbolic representation of a person raised in uncommon, atypical and confusingly bizarre environment not institutionally considered suitable for children and young adults hence his utter and distinct lack of social adjustment and advanced communicative skills. The movie poignantly emphasizes the striking reminiscence between his and Anna’s issues pertaining to almost non-existent experience with systematic socializing despite the fact that Anna was raised in a wealthy, relatively stable atmosphere benefiting from extensive class privileges whereas Kristoff’s “adoptive family” wasn’t even remotely reflective of nuclear conventions. And the latter is NOT presented as inferior to the former in any way or on any level because the mountain trolls, for all their cheerfulness and perkiness were painted as highly intelligent bearers of wisdom.

Driving forces and necessary conflicts of the story were already set up and would have been worked through and resolved in the same compellingly engaging, realistically ambiguous and emotionally powerful manner if Hans had not been portrayed as “the wrong man” archetype.

Nor did he serve as an obstacle on a way of Anna and Kritoff’s predestined bonding and increasingly progressing, blossoming romance which occurred as a result of natural alliance and firmly asserted mutual reliance between the latter two protagonists.

According to established and well documented storytelling constructs Anna and Kristoff’s relationship was a transparently evident homage to traditional fairy tale trope of “meant to be”. Which was canonically emphasized by means of a common method of intertwining their individual storylines from the very beginning of the movie. And having their worlds collide in inevitable manner and during the pivotal points of either characters’ lives.

Hans’ existence was virtually unnecessary to launch Anna and Kristoff’s romantic arc in motion. Anna/Hans provided no substance for potential expansion and exploration to ever devolve into endgame material which was, once again, glaringly obvious from the get go. Love at first sight storytelling mold does not function in a manner Anna and Hans’ initial interactions and build up played out hence why the audience was already exposed to evident prospect of impending doom regarding their relationship similarly to Giselle and Edward (Enchanted) case.

Enchanted, for all it’s monumentally unsettling flaws and unapologetic/obnoxious Western centrism (because apparently “reality” is universally defined by upper middle class Manhattan and pretentiously cynical divorce attorneys) managed to competently execute a storyline containing two suitors for a female protagonist without unjustifiably antagonizing either of them on behalf of a contrived dramatic effect. Despite not ultimately ending up in a long term commitment with his initially established female love interest Prince Edward exhibits an admirable consideration and regard for her and a man she compromised their engagement for. Coming to form a far more organic relationship with another woman whose perceptions and notions regarding romance reflect his and vice versa. Given the audience’s generally positive response towards Prince Edward there was NO objective or constructive reason for Disney to resort back to perpetuating “right man vs. wrong man” dichotomy rather than thinking outside the box and deviating from the comfort zone again.

Hans’ contrived antagonism did NOT come off as formula breaking or refreshingly progressive.

Not to suggest that he should have suddenly and unconvincingly developed feelings towards Elsa who, admittedly, was not in appropriate emotional condition at the particular point of her life the movie was structured around to engage in a romantic relationship in the first place. However, it is also an inadvertently problematic idea conveyed in the film - intentionally or not - implying that Elsa’s psychological issues somehow prevent her from being desirable and attractive to men or women in any way other than their random investment in lynching her.

Young girls with emotional/psychological issues, ones that have been otherized by the society in a way similar to Elsa (except they don’t have unlimited powers and icy castles to defend themselves from unceasing condemnation) are going to see Frozen. Their experiences are essentially variable thus where some yearn for familiar acceptance and mending sibling bonds others are genuinely eager to find a compatible romantic partner and fulfill themselves through traditional gender roles.

In the light of the aforementioned, significantly MORE of an elaborate and prominent approach would it have been to restructure Hans’ arc from the point of his arrival in Elsa’s icy castle and on.

For instance, making him sympathize with Elsa’s issues and legitimately attempt to protect her from inherent and encompassing ignorance of the Duke & others who opted for instantly rejecting and demonizing their newly proclaimed Queen. Although she did nothing but relentlessly strove to dutifully protect her Kingdom from any potential danger not excluding herself. Entwining Elsa and Hans’ storylines was an incredibly convenient opportunity for them to form a powerful platonic bond that would have opened the door (yes, pun completely intended) for any possible interpretation on part of the audience. THAT would have been Disney taking a legitimate challenge.