The Instigator
SnaxAttack
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Phenenas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Frozen overrated?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,004 times Debate No: 78442
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

SnaxAttack

Pro

In this debate, this will be an argument about whether or not the movie "Frozen" is overrated. I am on the side of "Pro", meaning that I am on the side that Frozen is overrated and over hyped; while my opponent will argue the opposite.

Structure:
1st Round: Acceptance and any needs of clarification (Ask questions in the comment section)
2nd Round: Opening Argument (Keep it Short)
3rd Round: Rebuttals and any New Arguments
4th Round: Rebuttals and Conclusion

Rules:
1. No forfeits! Any forfeit is an automatic disqualification, unless both sides have a even number of forfeits; then the Debate will continue like normal. Following the same structure based on the round.

2. This debate is not about finding a fact about Frozen being overrated, but about who stands upon their opinion more strongly than the other through argumentation.

3. No harassment or any foul language. Any means of doing this will be a loss on conduct points, and possible disqualification depending on how bad the foul language is done.

4. Have fun!

Definitions:
Frozen: Popular movie, made by Disney, that was released in 2013. Recieved much popularity from the young audience, and won best song for "Let it Go".

Overrated: To have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved.
Phenenas

Con

I accept these terms, and don't need any clarification as of yet.
Debate Round No. 1
SnaxAttack

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and wish him, or her, "Good Luck"! For this round, it will be an opening argument that is needed to be short.

To begin, I will discuss on why the Disney Movie "Frozen" is so overrated. Lets take a look at the statistics of its total Box Office income. It is said that the movie recieved over a billion dollars, which is definately a lot, and is considered Disney's best movie by many people. I will disagree with this statement by providing 7 reasons of why Disney's Frozen is not as great as people makes of it.

The first are the songs. We all know the one song "Let it Go" an how its everyones "favorite" song. Let it Go, I admit, is catchy; but not at the standards of being the "best". I wish to look back at previous Disney movies, like "The Lion King", "Aladdin", and "Beauty and the Beast". All three of these movies have very memorable songs throughout the whole movie, while Frozen only has two main contenders; "Do You Want to Build a Snowman" and of course "Let it Go". Compared to the three Disney Movies I brought up, that isn't a whole ton. Just because a song is popular does not make it the "best". In fact, there is no such thing as the "best", but is more on the majority of opinions on a particular idea.

Secondly, the villain. By the way, this is a "Spoiler Alert" so if you do not want to see this, I suggest you do not read this. Through out the movie, there is really no "true" villain, or antagonist in Frozen. At first it seems to be Elsa, but is later "misunderstood", then The Duke of Weasleton who could be a villain, but really does not do a great job on showing that he is a villain. If anything, he could more be a "nuisance", than an actual villain. And finally, we have Hans who, in my opinion, is not that great of a villain. What was his motive? To rule the kingdom because of his brothers making fun of him. That isn't the strongest types of reasons to become a villain, while other Disney movies show a stronger passion within the villain. Lets look at a few examples: Curella De Vil wanted to kill innocent puppies for a fur coat, Scar killed Mufasa to have power over the kingdom, and Chernabog is the devil himself. As we can see, the villains have better reasons of being a villain, than Hans who just wanted power and nothing else. As well as the fact that a villain is not established until 70% of the movie was complete, while the examples of villains I brought up were seen from the beginning to the end.

Thirdly, the whole plot of the movie is very shallow compared to other Disney movies. When I say "shallow", I mean the whole plot with point A to point B. Why did Elsa run away? Because her sister Anna wanted to marry Hans, as she just met him, and mistakenly revealed Elsa's powers. For the beginning of a movie, that is not a great set up; as well as the characters are "wooden". Wooden meaning plain and boring, and these characters achieve this. Most of their aspects were expected at the beginning, and really did not bring a surprise at all.

For now, I conclude this argument and curious on what mjy opponent says.
Phenenas

Con

I thank my opponent for his opening argument. Yes, Frozen is currently the highest-grossing animated film of all time [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. I think it's not a bad choice to hold that title, as Frozen is my third favorite Disney film. I will explain the reasons why later on. To understand why this film did so well, the context must be understood. Disney was not really doing well at the time. In the early 2000s, they were pushing out flop after flop, with Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, and more, not garnering much interest. In 2009, most agree that The Princess and the Frog was good, but 2010's Tangled, animated by computer generation rather than traditional drawing, did more strongly at the box office. Deciding that adults were more open to CG-animated movies, as they were conditioned to believe hand-drawn animation was "kids' stuff", they created a film with great music, an original story, and beautiful animation that hearkened back to Disney's most successful ever period in the 90s, the only change being that it was in three dimensions. That and very widespread, over-the-top marketing helped it become a giant part of pop culture. However, I love it because I consider it a great movie, not because it's popular.

There's not a single song in Frozen that I dislike. I really enjoy the songs "Let It Go" and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman", and no amount of exploitation could make me tired of it. You choose to compare it to Aladdin, Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast. Personally, I don't enjoy any song in the Lion King except "Be Prepared" and "Circle of Life". I'm very glad that songs I actually like are popular, as opposed to "Hakuna Matata". While Aladdin does have awesome songs, some better than Frozen's, it is very much a product of its time, with pop culture references and somewhat dated dialogue. Frozen is more timeless, and the characters fit within their setting more. I will admit that Frozen's soundtrack cannot match the fantastic songs by Alan Menken for Beauty and the Beast. Music, however, is more a matter of taste and hardly something that's easily debated. I don't think Frozen has the "best" songs just because I consider it one of the best Disney movies, nor will I diminish my opinion of them simply because they are overly exploited.

I agree with you that Hans, in and of himself, was not that strong of a villain. I didn't think that twist was needed at first. However, I don't think the conflict in the movie was driven by the villain. Not all family films - I will argue - need a villain. If you look at many films done by Pixar, Studio Ghibli, and Don Bluth, they succeeded and were fantastic in many cases without needing an evil antagonist. While there are several great ones, like Frollo and Maleficent, not every film must have a bad guy from beginning to end. Frozen did, as it turned out, but as I realized later, Hans was less of a dark, complex villain and more of a warning to the film's younger audience. If you've ever seen Pinocchio, you know that Jiminy Cricket tries to warn the titular puppet against temptation. That film's message was a bit confused, I think, but Frozen did it both subtly and more clearly. Hans was the quintessential Disney prince, appearing very silly, likable, and charming. He succeeds in "tempting" Anna into practically giving her life to him, taking advantage of her na"vet". Near the end is an opportunity to teach younger viewers that appearances can be deceiving, and not always to trust strangers. He isn't that "cool" of a character, but the conflict is thankfully more focused on the two sisters, as it should be.

I strongly disagree that the plot is "shallow" in any way. You could summarize any plot to simplify it like that: fish-girl wants to become human, meets human royalty, makes a deal with the devil, grows legs but can't talk, and so on. The plot centers around Elsa's hurt and inner conflict from the death of her parents, which is not talked about but shown through visuals, as a film should do. She is locked away, being a danger to everyone, and eventually runs off, embracing solitude and throwing away all of her worldly tethers. This is no basic "good versus evil" story; it is a complex and emotion-driven plot shown in a simple way that children can understand. The characters did not feel at all wooden . Anna is energetic and fun-loving, innocent and naive, much more of a personality than can be said for Pocahontas or Aurora from Sleeping Beauty. Kristoff is a young but rugged mountain man who takes time to fall in love with Anna, and does not immediately marry her at the end. Olaf is decent comic relief, thankfully whispering a lot of his jokes rather than obnoxious shouting. Elsa is, if you'll excuse the wording, cold and distant, and her struggle to keep herself contained and subdued all her life explodes in one song, when she finally finds true freedom. Their character motivations are simple, yes, but simplicity is a good thing. The message of sister-sister love at the end, NOT romantic unlike what some fanfiction writers think, is something that Disney had never done before. While I think Frozen is a great movie, it's really the first half that is some of Disney's best work, while the second half and climax are just good. Other than that, I find much less flaw in this movie than my opponent. With that, I await Pro's counter-argument.
Debate Round No. 2
SnaxAttack

Pro

CGI Argument
In this round, my opponent explained a little backstory on how CGI movies do much better than regular animated cartoon movies. I will agree in this sense, but quoted by my opponent " Deciding that adults were more open to CG-animated movies, as they were conditioned to believe hand-drawn animation was "kids' stuff", they created a film with great music, an original story, and beautiful animation that hearkened back to Disney's most successful ever period in the 90s, the only change being that it was in three dimensions". First off, Frozen or Tangled are technically not the first Disney movie to adapt this set of animation style; but the first being Pixar, who is in fact owned by Disney. Pixar have released many more movies before Frozen, and made more money than just one movie; as well as had much stronger ratings.

In reality, the reason Frozen did so well was because it hit the right mark of the audience; little girls. Stated under "Births by Sex"(1), it states that 2008 was the highest year where most girls were born, compared to the other years. If we look at their age in 2013, the time when Frozen was released, most of these young girls would be 4 or 5, the ideal age for them to have an attraction to Disney Princesses. Simply enough, the movie hit the time frame at the right time; and many of these young girls "begged" to see this movie. It was not because of having a "unique" element, but was more just hit at the right time.

Song Debate
This section of the debate is more about personal opinions, and I will respect your opinion; but my opponents main argument is chock full of opinions. My opponent gives more opinions, then any true argument like the following quote: "There's not a single song in Frozen that I dislike. I really enjoy the songs 'Let It Go' and 'Do You Want to Build a Snowman'". First off, my opponent brings up his opinion and making a strong claim that there is no song to dislike in Frozen, when in reality the two main contenders he brought up are the two most popular songs within the movie. While I brought up that throughout most of the other Disney movies, the songs are very memorable. I also wish to state one thing to the voters, my opponent has not brought up any argument for any other songs in Frozen, besides the two most popular ones.

Then my opponent states that any other Disney movie with songs isn't as good as Frozens. Through a variety of numerous research, there have been many lists that state the top Disney songs; based upon a high vote of favoritism and "catchyness". Some lists had one Frozen song in the list, but many did not. Stated under "Top 25 Disney Songs"(2) the number one song was "A Whole New World" and no Frozen songs were in the list. This goes to others, which shows that more people believe that Frozen's songs are not that great compared to these classics. Also, my opponent makes a vague argument with the following quote "It is very much a product of its time, with pop culture references and somewhat dated dialogue". First off, anything can technically be outdated by not being "in", even though it was "in" yesterday. So that argument really can't work because anything can be "outdated", even technically Frozen.

Finally, this is the big "kicker" about my opponents argument about the songs in Frozen. My opponent, at the end of his previous argument, stated: "I don't think Frozen has the "best" songs just because I consider it one of the best Disney movies, nor will I diminish my opinion of them simply because they are overly exploited". Voters, my opponent just admitted about Frozen being overrated, or in his own words "overly exploited", which is an indication that he has "dropped" that argument; when the topic is about providing an argument of how Frozen isn't overrated.

Villain Argument
My opponents main argument in this section of the deabte is not every movie needs a villain. I will agree in this sense, but my opponents claim about Han being a villain is a "good" villain is just ridiculous. First off, yes he was a viewage of showing temptation and not to fall for it; but how the temptation was, was just ridiculous. Anna wanted to fine "love" and Han just coincidentally showed up at the right time. Technically that was not the fault of Hans, but Anna overstressing the idea of finding "love"; and Hans, by chance, faked falling in love. The other villains in Disney movies have more stronger characteristics, than Hans of being a villain. The examples I provided was Cruella De Vil who wanted to kill innocent puppies for her own personal benefit, Scar who killed the King Mufasa to obtain power, and Chernabog being the Devil himself. I ask my opponent, how are these villains not better than Hans?

Also, I wish to bring up another flaw of the villain within Frozen. A villain not being established early on in the movie. I will agree with my opponent that a movie does not need a villain, but if it does; the villain should be exposed early on within the movie, so it builds up to the conflict of the Protagonist and Antagonist. Frozen failed to do this, with constant changes of villains through out the movie, and when Hans was exposed; the movie started to lag behind in conflict, when it should have been established early on.

Plot Argument
In the first argument, I stated that the plot of Frozen was "shallow" and boring. My opponent, obviously, disagrees with my statement and I will gladly like to disprove my opponents statements.

The plot centers around Elsa's hurt and inner conflict from the death of her parents, which is not talked about but shown through visuals, as a film should do.

When were these visuals shown within the film? All I remember was one blip of sorrowness from Anna and Elsa, but the movie shoved that idea away with a "happy" song "Do you want to Build a Snowman". There was no indication of Elsa "feeling" pain about the death of her parents, but more of a quick image of showing sorrow. Just because a movie shows a character being sad does not mean that they have a lot of in depth in sadness. The idea of parents dying is overused and really not original in the movie industry nowadays. If we talk about a movie that did this very well, take a look at the first 10 minutes of the movie "Up". That beginning is a tear jerker where it shows a happy relationship, and the sadness of losing a mate. It was sad, but did it more successfully with visuals, than Frozen.

She is locked away, being a danger to everyone, and eventually runs off, embracing solitude and throwing away all of her worldly tethers.

Once more, a common plot element used in many Disney movies. The princess being locked away because of reasons. This reason is because of being a "danger" within society, and I agree; but I must ask who decided to do this? It wasn't a villain who said "Lock her away", but her parents. Her parents are technically the ones who is to blame for making her afraid of using her powers. Secondly, she runs off; but why? The main reason is because of Anna saying she wants to marry a guy that she just met, and made Elsa accidentally use her powers. How is this a good message for kids? To run away because something didn't go their way?

This is no basic "good versus evil" story; it is a complex and emotion-driven plot shown in a simple way that children can understand.

How is this even a complex and emotion-driven plot? All we see in the movie is a simple plot of going from Point A to Point B. Anna trying to get to her sister Elsa, and having other random characters "hop" in at certain times. There was really no internal drama happening on their journey, but more about getting to a destination. That is not really a complex plot at all.

Anna is energetic and fun-loving, innocent and naive, much more of a personality than can be said for Pocahontas or Aurora from Sleeping Beauty. Kristoff is a young but rugged mountain man who takes time to fall in love with Anna, and does not immediately marry her at the end. Olaf is decent comic relief, thankfully whispering a lot of his jokes rather than obnoxious shouting. Elsa is, if you'll excuse the wording, cold and distant, and her struggle to keep herself contained and subdued all her life explodes in one song, when she finally finds true freedom. Their character motivations are simple, yes, but simplicity is a good thing.

In this argument, my opponent goes in depth about how the characters are not "wooden". Admitedly, I would have accepted this argument, but my opponent said one thing that "dropped" this argument. My opponent said "Their character motivation are simple, yes, but simplicity is a good thing". If my opponent admitted that they a simple, they technically fall under the category of a "wooden character". Simple, but really has no unique characteristics. So this point was dropped in this one quote.

The message of sister-sister love at the end, NOT romantic unlike what some fanfiction writers think, is something that Disney had never done before.

I will agree that "Sister Love" is somewhat new within Disney, but the concept of love is overdone. Most movies use that idea, which makes it more unoriginal than original.

Before concluding this round, I wish to bring up a few more arguments to prove that Frozen is overrated. First off, it still is going on within society. Lets look at the movie "Tangled" where it was popular for its timeframe, but later died down. Frozen, on the other hand, is still high on popularity because of Disney using it to "milk" money out of their consumer. Just because it was a hit does not mean the hype should still continue after so many years. Secondly, remember the recent movie "Cinderella", well more people seen the Frozen short at the beginning, than Cinderella. That, I hope, shows how over the top Frozen has become.

Sources:
1. http://www.infoplease.com...
2. http://www.ign.com...
3. http://www.forbes.com...
Phenenas

Con

You misinterpreted my statement about CGI. Yes, it had been used for about almost 20 years before 2013 to make family films. But while Pixar has their own way of creating films, Frozen uses this animation technique to represent the traditional Disney formula, which many young adults at around that time had nostalgia for. So, while the birth statistics of 2008 is an interesting point, Disney also gained a significant adult audience wishing to feel like they're watching Little Mermaid or Aladdin again. Unlike Tangled a few years earlier, Frozen used advanced techniques combining math, physics, and a lot of computational power to create complex effects. [1]

Yes, the film has a massive following of little girls. I fail to see how that detracts from the film's value at all. While I wish film was done simply for art's sake, it must be understood that it is a business with demographics and statistics. So yes, Disney released their pretty princess movie at around the time that there would be lots of young girls "begging to see this movie". But I will contest that there were many adults who went to see Frozen, even without kids, for reasons I mentioned earlier.

I did not bring up any other songs because I supposed that saying "there is no song to dislike" would imply that I more-or-less liked all of them. I ask my opponent his opinion on whether he thought any of these songs were particularly bad or contributed to his claim of Frozen being overrated.

I understand that some people have made lists of the supposedly best Disney songs, and "Let it Go" may not have been on them. I question the validity of my opponent's second source. The article was written by Lucy O'Brien, and it represents not public opinion, but the opinions of O'Brien herself. On the other hand, some very informed opinions decided to vote for the film to win the Academy Award for Best Original Song [2], two Grammy Awards for both Best Compilation Soundtrack for Visual Media and Best Song Written for Visual Media, and a Critics' Choice Movie Award for Best Original Song. Aladdin makes numerous pop culture references for the time [3]. I will contest that, while Aladdin is a great movie, it is better in general for a film to remain timeless, which Frozen does.

I will inform all voters that my opponent misinterpreted my use of "overly exploited". I understand that it is easy to misconstrue that as surrender, but I was admitting the overexposure of the songs themselves, not the movie. I really enjoy Let it Go, but I'm well aware that the public is madly obsessed with it. Frozen, as a film, is getting as much attention as it deserves. The argument was not "dropped" by myself, and that statement in fact has little to do with the debate.

Cruella De Vil, Scar, and Chernabog are all better than Hans, most definitely. My argument is not that Frozen is a perfect Disney film in every single aspect. But the strength in Frozen comes from elsewhere: the main characters, the music, the animation, and the writing. The subplot of Hans itself is a clear parody of Disney's own films in the past, especially Snow White, in which the main character only just met a prince before declaring him the love of her life and becoming completely dead-set on marrying him. The exact same thing happens in Frozen, except the film smartly discusses why rushing into marriage is a bad idea, hammering it in with the possibility of "Prince Charming" turning out to be a power-hungry maniac. I reiterate, Hans isn't great as a villain, but I enjoy the subplot and the lesson it is trying to teach. The film didn't have a strong antagonist, but it wasn't trying to create one.

My opponent makes this claim:

"I will agree with my opponent that a movie does not need a villain, but if it does; the villain should be exposed early on within the movie, so it builds up to the conflict of the Protagonist and Antagonist."

I argue that conflict can come from elsewhere aside from an antagonist. Even for a film that has a villain, the true conflict of the story is the emotional conflict between the two sisters who want different things, and conflict against the elements when they are forced to survive against wolves, blizzards, and icy curses. The villain has a minor role, as opposed to most other Disney movies, which have villains as the main, or even only, factor that creates conflict. Establishing the villain early on is simply a trope that Frozen did not do, and I disagree that it was particularly needed for the movie.

If you pay attention to "Do You Want to Build a Snowman", you will notice that while it seems "happy" at the beginning, it progressively loses energy and focuses on the tragedy of Anna trying to get her sister's attention while Elsa stays isolated in her room. As Elsa's powers are most unstable whenever she is emotional, the visual of Elsa sitting huddled against the door, her room covered in ice, represent Elsa's sorrow. I agree that dying parents is rather overused by Disney, but it was essential for the story of Elsa becoming heir to the throne. The beginning of Up is brilliant, and it's greater and more poignant than anything in Frozen. But Disney wasn't trying to truly convey the tragedy of losing loved ones; it was more focused on giving the backstory of Elsa and Anna, showing the death of their parents to be one of the main things that drove them apart.

"It wasn't a villain who said 'Lock her away', but her parents. Her parents are technically the ones who is to blame for making her afraid of using her powers."

You seem to find a problem with this, but I actually have a positive view. Take Mother Gothel locking up Rapunzel because she's an evil, greedy villain who wants her magic hair. Compare that to Frozen, where it is more of a complex situation: the king and queen have a daughter born with magical powers, but these powers are extraordinarily dangerous to others. To add on to that, Elsa's powers clearly inspire fear in everyone when first seen, and some superstition about witchcraft is hinted at. They lock Elsa up to keep her safe and keep her away from Anna because she was already harmed by Elsa's powers. Just like in the real world, there is no clearly-defined bad guy in this situation.

"How is this a good message for kids? To run away because something didn't go their way?"

Elsa's argument with Anna was mainly a way to get her emotional, which in turn led to her using her powers. I don't see it as particularly harmful to the mindsets of children. The guests at the party clearly saw Elsa's powers as malevolent. And besides, I think it is far enough removed from reality and shown enough to be a bad decision for kids not to emulate it. If you show your kids Peter Pan, they won't have their growth stunted.

You say that Frozen's plot is "going from Point A to Point B." And if you take out the characters and actual story, then yes, it is, but so is every story ever written. As I've said, it mostly centers around the two sisters and how they are polar opposites. Anna, who has barely ever seen Elsa, is forced to confront her when the entire kingdom is covered in ice. Going from one point to another is a basic element of storytelling. And while a movie where it was just that and nothing else would be bland, there are tons of other aspects of the film aside from that journey.

A simple character is not always a wooden character. Take, for a popular example, Bugs Bunny. His personality is that of a sly, witty trickster. Very simple. But that is not wooden. The definition of a "wooden" or "flat" character is as follows: "a ... character type in fiction who may not be fully delineated but is useful in carrying out some narrative purpose of the author." [4] This means that the character is just a device used by the creator to carry out their story, with little personality of their own. While Bugs Bunny isn't as complex or layered as Hamlet, he still has a very definite character. This was only to define my use of the term "simple" to describe Frozen's characters.

"...the concept of love is overdone. Most movies use that idea, which makes it more unoriginal than original."

Love is one of the most basic human emotions that drives us to passion, sorrow, and storytelling. I think I can forgive a film for using a timeless emotion that drives mankind to even tell stories in the first place.

Millions of people have seen Frozen and really enjoy it. I argue that a combination of Frozen's great marketing, original ideas and takes on the Disney formula, and sheer quality make the hype for it well-deserved. Frozen is quite the cash cow, but the way I see it, it has been loved for so long because many talented people put honest hard work and effort into making it a great movie, and it paid off beautifully. More so than Tangled. Another factor for this may be increased internet usage. The internet is a way to quickly spread and receive information about recent movies. Internet use has increased from 74% in November 2010, when Tangled came out, to 86% in September 2013, a couple months before Frozen [5]. For your "Cinderella" argument, how many people want to see yet another Disney remake of a movie they already did? Making a short based on a film many people love (86% of nearly 300,000 people gave it a thumbs-up [6]) is an entirely rational way to bring in moviegoers. The short "Frozen Fever" itself was not good at all, but that is far beyond the point. I now await Pro's response.

1. http://www.cgmeetup.net...
2. http://www.boxofficemojo.com...
3. http://www.hollywood.com...
4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
5. http://www.pewinternet.org...
6. http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
SnaxAttack

Pro

Pixar Originally using Disney's Formula
Quoted by my opponent, he stated: "But while Pixar has their own way of creating films, Frozen uses this animation technique to represent the traditional Disney formula". For this statement, I wish to look at the sign of a "Disney Formula". Of course, a "Disney Formula“ can be represented as anything. So for this argument, I used one of the most common aspects of what everyone claims as the "Disney Formula". Stated by Zach Baker (1), he said that the "Disney Formula" was: "Becoming separated from one's family, rediscovering the meaning of family, and finding one's own identity through regaining family”. Frozen accomplishes this task to the tip of the tee, but previous Pixar movies have done the same thing. One example was the movieFinding Nemo, where Nemo was separated from his family, characters learned about the meaning of family, and the characters finding their own identity; especially Dory with her memory issues. As we can see, there have been many films before Frozen that has followed these set of rules for the “Disney Formula”; even the film Tangled did it before Frozen.

The Audience isn't Everyone
My opponent continues his argument with the following quote: "Disney also gained a significant adult audience wishing to feel like they're watching Little Mermaid or Aladdin again. Unlike Tangled a few years earlier, Frozen used advanced techniques combining math, physics, and a lot of computational power to create complex effects". To begin, i first like to point out that both films "Tangled" and "Frozen" used very similar animation styles. Both used Math, Physics, etc, so my opponent really cannot make a claim that another used a better animation style, than the other; when both used the same style (2). The main difference is that Tangled took a more "Classic" Disney approach, with the art style, while Frozen went with a more "Modern" type of style. Following my opponents claim that the reason adults liked Frozen was because of bringing a "Classic" feel to their childhood, actually contradicts itself when Tangled actually gives a more "Classic" Disney style.

Also, if we look at the amount of money spent for making these films, Tangled actually spent more money in production at 250 million, compared to Frozen who spent at least 150 million. My opponents claim about Frozen using more "advanced" technology can also be false in this sense because its common to know that whoever spent more money, used more advanced effects.

In the previous round, I brought up a statistic about the percentage of little girls being born in 2008 and how that impacted the views of Frozen. My opponent questions how this plays into effect, and I will prove how it does. When we look at great movies, we see that the movie is aimed towards a variety of audiences. Examples being Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and numerous Pixar films. What does Frozen aim after? Well, Frozen aims after one audience, and that audience typically falls under the little girl category. Even admitted by my opponent, he said: "Yes, the film has a massive following of little girls". My opponent continues on with the fact of Disney being a business, and I understand that; but how does this make it a good movie if it targets only one type of audience; girls? The movie has a high influence on femisism by putting the focus on the princesses, and making the men either "idiotic" or "villainous". How does this appeal to boys in any way, for it being consider a "great" movie, when it disbands one of its audience (3)?


Song Debate
In the previous argument, I brought a source that gave the Top 25 Disney songs. My opponent claims that this source cannot be used because of being more opinion based, but does not read what I said before. I said: "Through a variety of numerous research, there have been many lists that state the top Disney songs; based upon a high vote of favoritism and "catchyness". Some lists had one Frozen song in the list, but many did not". My opponent clearly did not see that what I stated was that some lists had Frozen songs, while others did not; but most of the time, any Frozen song did not even make it to the top 5.

Also, my opponent makes an argument that Frozen won a award, so that should mean its a good song,but I find there are more memorable songs in previous Disney movies. If we actually look at the awards Disney has recieved throughout the years of their films (4), Disney has won many awards for their previous songs; before Frozen was even released. My main argument for this section of the debate is that Frozen only hadtwo main contenders for songs, while other Disney movies have memorable songs throughout the flick. My opponents argument really did not show why other Disney songs are not as memorable as Frozen's, but more so just gave his opinion on Frozen's songs.

Finally, in the previous round, I made the claim that my opponent "dropped" this section of the deabte. He did not because it was a mistake, but in this round admits how overrated the songs in Frozen is. He stated: "I understand that it is easy to misconstrue that as surrender, but I was admitting the overexposure of the songs themselves". He just admitted about how over exposed the songs of Disney's Frozen is, and admits that it is overrated. Voters, how can he admit about this twice when he is in the position of the side of proving that Frozen isn't ovverated".

Villain Argument
This portion will be short, but my opponent admits that Hans as a villain wasn't that great. He states: "Cruella De Vil, Scar, and Chernabog are all better than Hans, most definitely. My argument is not that Frozen is a perfect Disney film in every single aspect". Then why are we debating this if your saying that Frozen isn't a perfect Disney film? Stated in the first round, the definition of overrated was: "To have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved". If my opponents position is to argue that Frozen is not overrated, then why did you admit that it isn't a "perfect film". The definition of overrated is a term used to say how something isn't as great as it seems, yet if your in the position of saying Frozen isn't overrated; then how is it perfect?

Also, previous Disney films are memorable because of their strong villain, yet Frozen cannot provide this. If my opponent admitted of Hans not being a "great" villain, how is it a memorable film; while most films are memorable because of the villain?

Plot Argument:
Even for a film that has a villain, the true conflict of the story is the emotional conflict between the two sisters who want different things, and conflict against the elements when they are forced to survive against wolves, blizzards, and icy curses. The villain has a minor role, as opposed to most other Disney movies, which have villains as the main, or even only, factor that creates conflict. Establishing the villain early on is simply a trope that Frozen did not do, and I disagree that it was particularly needed for the movie.

Can't the story also be an emotional conflict with a villain involved to mess up the plans? A villain is there to drive this emotion up, and show the challenges that characters must face and the villain needs to be established early on, so it can drive up the the final moment of the film. If you look at most films that won awards, most of them had a villain which made the movie even more memorable.

If you pay attention to "Do You Want to Build a Snowman", you will notice that while it seems "happy" at the beginning, it progressively loses energy and focuses on the tragedy of Anna trying to get her sister's attention while Elsa stays isolated in her room. As Elsa's powers are most unstable whenever she is emotional, the visual of Elsa sitting huddled against the door, her room covered in ice, represent Elsa's sorrow.

I would have not even bothered to argue this statement, except my opponent said, within the segment of text, "I agree that dying parents is rather overused by Disney, but it was essential for the story of Elsa becoming heir to the throne. The beginning of Up is brilliant, and it's greater and more poignant than anything in Frozen". My opponent admitted that the movie "Up" had a better tragedy, and even admitted that the idea of losing family is overdone. This contradicts my opponents opening argument where he said, in the second round, "They created a film with great music, an original story". How is it original if you just admitted that the idea of the death of parents is overdone?

This means that the character is just a device used by the creator to carry out their story, with little personality of their own. While Bugs Bunny isn't as complex or layered as Hamlet, he still has a very definite character. This was only to define my use of the term "simple" to describe Frozen's characters.

I agree with the definition my opponent gave, but contradicts his argument once again. My opponent previously stated "The characters did not feel at all wooden", yet it follows the definition of wooden given by my opponent. It was defined as: "A character type in fiction who may not be fully delineated but is useful in carrying out some narrative purpose of the author". Isn't that the purpose of Frozen's plot, where my opponent even admits that they are going to Point A to Point B.

I think I can forgive a film for using a timeless emotion that drives mankind to even tell stories in the first place.

But my opponent is arguing how Frozen isn't ovverated, but more on the position of trying to prove its originality. My opponent attempts to argue, but contradicts himself constantly through the debate. Vote Pro!

Sources:
1. http://www.quora.com...
2.http://sensesofcinema.com...
3. http://www.firstshowing.net...
4. http://www.imdb.com...;
Phenenas

Con

Disney Formula Rebuttal:
I wasn't aware of any specific definition for "Disney formula". I was not referring to the one that you linked. I was talking about, in general, the princesses, songs, and fantasy worlds present in Disney's most popular films. A simple misunderstanding can be forgiven, even though my opponent's points about Finding Nemo and Tangled were simply off-topic.

"Tangled" Comparison Rebuttal:
The style of Tangled is most certainly that of a hand-drawn Disney film. It is a traditionally animated movie in CGI clothing, with more of a traditional, "painted" look to it. Frozen evokes traditional Disney movies in its style, but is shot in the way of a contemporary CGI film, creating a style uniquely its own. It is curious how Frozen beat Tangled popularity-wise by such a large amount, but it is likely because of its new take on Disney's usual tropes and stereotypes, and its fundamentally more interesting characters. Animation-wise, techniques had improved in the three-year-space between Tangled and Frozen: animators used new software such as Spaces and Flourish to make the characters' movements more flowing and lifelike. Rapunzel had 27,000 strands of hair that the animators had to work with, but this was dwarfed by 400,000 CGI hairs on Elsa. [1] In short, Frozen's animation is indeed far more advanced.

My opponent makes the broad generalization of "its common to know that whoever spent more money, used more advanced effects." This is not necessarily true, as Tangled was more expensive for several reasons. As I've mentioned before, the look of Tangled is "painterly", not photo-realistic. Extensive research and development was unnecessarily put toward emulating the look of a traditional Disney film, likely adding up to millions of dollars. Development on the film dates back to as far as 2000, and was started and stopped at least twice before the final product was released. The actual cost to produce Tangled itself was likely somewhere between $150 to $200 million, roughly the same as Frozen's. [2]

Audience Rebuttal:
My opponent seems to have ignored my point of Frozen appealing to everyone, not just little girls. Note that I said it had a "massive following of little girls", not "has a following of only little girls". A good movie, I will agree, can appeal to many types of people. Frozen, in spite of what my opponent thinks, accomplishes this. Little girls can appreciate the pretty princesses and songs. Little boys can appreciate the comedy and well-done action scenes. Teens and adults can appreciate the emotional drama, inside jokes about previous Disney films, and highly advanced artistic style. Feminism plays only a small role in Frozen. Several Disney princesses in the past were obviously just created to seem strong and independent, but given little else of a character. Mulan, Pocahontas, and especially Merida are examples of this. Elsa and Anna, as well as all the male characters, have distinct personalities beyond those that political correctness demand. Kristoff is a good role model for the boys in the audience. He is strong and even-tempered but also open-minded. He isn't the most intelligent character, but as a mountain-man, it only makes sense story-wise for him not to be. It in no way "disbands" or alienates boys from the audience. [3] If it does, then why do so many males enjoy it?

Song Rebuttal:
I acknowledge that you said that many internet lists of Disney's top songs were created based on "numerous research" and "a high vote of favoritism and catchyness", but you failed to back up this point with any sources, save one that seemed to be based solely on opinion. My opponent failed to cite any proper sources that would strengthen the information he described. Moving on, many popular songs such as "A Whole New World", "Under the Sea", and "Colors of the Wind" have won Academy Awards in the past. I think my opponent is pointing out that Frozen's songs are very much exploited, more so than other Disney songs, even though they won the exact same awards. I'll argue that Disney songs are always exploited at the time that the movies come out: the world practically went nuts over Hakuna Matata and Friend Like Me. However, Let It Go and Do You Want To Build a Snowman were much more popular because of, as I mentioned before, internet access. Nowadays, the world is metaphorically a "smaller place" than it ever was. Information spreads like wildfire, and it only makes sense that crazes based on new Disney movies will be spread a lot more quickly.

"Voters, how can he admit about this twice when he is in the position of the side of proving that Frozen isn't ovverated""

I will make this simple. The songs in Frozen are extremely popular. I like the songs, but perhaps they have gained more popularity than they deserve. The debate's title is "Is Frozen overrated?". I assume this is referring to the actual movie as a whole. If so, then I find that the movie in and of itself deserves all of its recognition, but the songs, in and of themselves, are somewhat overplayed. "Let it Go" is a good song, but there are better ones from Disney that I would prefer to listen to. Hopefully, there are no contradictions present in this paragraph.

Villain Rebuttal:
My opponent asks "If my opponents position is to argue that Frozen is not overrated, then why did you admit that it isn't a 'perfect film'." Every film, even the greatest, have their flaws. Sure, there are some that say Frozen is a perfect film, but I am confident that this is not the majority. Especially now, with the anti-hype backlash. [4] (Note: I'm using a video as the source here, but it is very thoughtful and reads like an article) I think Frozen is a great film that will be watched and remembered decades from now. But it is not flawless in every way, nor is it played out to be that. Assuming you are going off the definition of "perfect" being "excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement". As for Frozen being memorable in spite of its less-than-perfect villain, I believe I already established this point in the previous round. The memorability in Frozen comes from other points aside from the villain. In that way, it is different from most Disney films.

Pro asks "Can't the story also be an emotional conflict with a villain involved to mess up the plans?" With this argument, he is focusing more on what he thought the film should have been, as opposed to the film that was actually made. A villain can aid in creating emotional conflict, but isn't necessary for it. A story with a villain is not fundamentally better than a story without; they are just two different types of stories, and can both be done great or done poorly. The conflict can very easily come from elsewhere. The idea of dying parents is a trope used by Disney, not a story. The definition of "trope" is "a common or overused theme or device". [5] Tropes are used to create stories, being ever-present in every movie and book, and while the trope of dead parents is admittedly used a lot by Disney, the film's story as a whole is original. It even having an original take on many tropes that were used before. For example, the generic "evil witch" cliche is an actual sympathetic, identifiable character.

Character Rebuttal:
My opponent seems to have misread the definition of a "wooden character". What the definition is saying is that when a character's personality is not explored and is obviously meant to only accomplish this or that in the plot, they are wooden. This is not the case for Frozen, as we have both agreed upon.

Conclusion:
While my opponent insists that I was "more on the position of trying to prove its originality", I was trying to deflect rather outlandish points that he had brought up. His points on other Disney movies having better villains and the movie being supposedly aimed at little girls had not much to do with the debate itself. My opponent seemed bent on proving that Frozen was actually a bad film, which was not the topic of the debate. The debate, ideally, would have been more focused on whether or not it deserves the massive following that it has, but Pro steered it in the direction of a normal movie argument. Pro also seemed to misunderstand many of my statements, assuming that my argument contained many "contradictions". Notably, he insists that my pointing out of any flaw in Frozen immediately nullifies my arguments and is tantamount to surrender. Hopefully my voters see past this, and understand that there is a difference between loving a film and calling it flawless or perfect in every way. And with that, I conclude my final argument on why the movie Frozen is not overrated. I wish my opponent the best of luck when it comes time to vote.

Sources:
1. http://www.cheatsheet.com...
2. http://www.quora.com...
3. http://www.newyorker.com...
4. http://channelawesome.com...
5. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
SnaxAttack
How am I overrated?
Posted by hcd1997 1 year ago
hcd1997
The only person who is overrated is @SnaxAttackk
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
SnaxAttack
1. A standing on one's opinion is having better arguments under ones opinion.
2. Depends on the voter on who they think provided a better argument.
3. Once more, voters decision on who they think held better arguments, with their opinion.
Posted by pseudointellectual 1 year ago
pseudointellectual
Originally is seems the implied possible arguments are Frozen is overrated or Frozen is not overrated. The clarification seems to be saying the implied arguments are that the proponent has a greater ability to stand on his opinion or the opponent has a greater ability to stand on her opinion. I am having trouble understanding how these claims can be evaluated. I am trying to understand with the assumption that it is a debate. So my questions in that conext are (1) What is standing on one's opinion? (2) How is that evaluated? (3) How does the evaluation of a person's ability to stand on their opinion support the argument of Frozen being overrated or not?
No votes have been placed for this debate.