The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Resolved: Frozen is better than the Lion King

Do you like this debate?NoYes+17
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 4 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,988 times Debate No: 48984
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (52)
Votes (4)

 

imabench

Pro

First round acceptance only.

Prepare your anus.
Raisor

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

Reasons why Frozen is better than the Lion King

1) The bad guys in the film

One of the main reasons why Frozen is better than the Lion King is that the main evil character in Frozen is a bad guy who you DONT sympathize with. Scar, as evil as he is, still has his moments in the film that makes him somewhat likable. For example:

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net...'m_surrounded_by_idiots.gif

(See first video at 32 seconds in)

The gif and both videos show that Scar, though CLEARLY the evil character in the film, is still likable to an undeniable degree.

Prince Hans from Frozen on the other hand is the absolute portrayal of what evil people can look like and how they behave. Prince Hans in Frozen is completely unpredictable, the definition of a terrible person, and there isnt anything he wouldnt do to have his way, whereas Scar in The Lion King is such a generic bad guy that you knew he was a bad guy with nefarious plans, and saw them coming from a mile away.....

Basically, Scar is too likable of a bad guy compared to Prince Hans, an actual bad guy, so points for more realistic antagonist goes to Frozen.

In addition to that, NOBODY expected Prince Hans to actually be the bad guy in the movie Frozen, whereas EVERYONE could figure out pretty quick that Scar was the main antagonist in the Lion King. I mean hell, his name is SCAR, he HAS a scar (the equivalent of an eye patch basically, which is the call sign of someone who is a bad guy), the whole time he murmurs about wanting to be king, and the one song he gets to sing in the movie looks like a Nazi rally for Hitler in WWII Germany! (See third video).....

Everyone and their mother knew that Scar was evil and werent surprised to see him push Mufasa to his death, but Prince Hans was different. Hans was from the get-go someone you thought would be one of the good guys in the film. I mean anyone who does the robot while singing 'love is an open door' usually turns out to be the good guy. However, Hans was simply acting, he was figuratively putting on a mask on to conceal his motive, which was to have both sisters killed and him inheriting the kingdom.

This is important because one of the most abundant traits you see in teenagers in the real world today is that many of them are fake. People put on figurative masks in real life and act like they are good people all the time and are complete d-bags behind everyones back all the time. People act fake, and may pretend to help you, but in reality want nothing more then to watch you fall, and you may never know who these people are.

So in terms of the 'realness' of bad guys, Frozen beats the Lion King on this one since not every evil person is someone you can spot from a mile away. Many times the bad guy in life can be the person you thought you could trust. Scar is a typical cookie-cutter bad guy you expect to see in a Disney movie, Prince Hans on the other hand is a bad guy whose status as an antagonist really shocks an audience.



2) Songs

Lets look at the views and number of likes from all the main songs in both films (organized by popularity)

Lion King:

Cant wait to be king = 29.8 Million views, 42,000 likes
Circle of Life = 16.3 Million views, 40,500 likes
Hakuna Matata = 12.3 Million views, 23,000 likes
Can you feel the love tonight = 11.1 Million views, 29,000 likes
Be Prepared = 1.4 Million views, 4,700 likes

Frozen:

Let it go = 143.5 Million views, 700,000 likes
In summer = 15.9 Million views, 46,000 likes
Do you want to build a snowman = 12.1 Million views, 45,000 likes
for the first time in forever = 9.3 Million views, 21,000 likes
love is an open door = 5.3 Million views, 11,000 likes

Long story short, The song Let it Go from Frozen has more views than ALL the songs in The Lion King, COMBINED, TIMES 2. In terms of likes on the other hand, Let it Go has more likes than all the Lion King Songs combined, TIMES 4

So song wise, Frozen absolutely dominates the Lion King.



3) Frozen doesnt have a weird sex scene, The Lion King does

Both movies are predominantly kids movies, but only the Lion King has a mega awkward sex scene thrown right into the middle of the movie.

Heres what I mean: http://www.lionking.org...

^ Nala's face in this scene right here sets the stage for what was going to be the crazy lion sex between her and Simba that ended up being deleted out of the movie. I mean hell, theres a meme for this picture where Nala actually says 'hakuna my tatas': http://i.imgur.com...

Frozen does NOT have an awkward sex scene between wild animals, The Lion King does. Whats worse is that the sex in the Lion King created offspring that spawned two crappy sequels to The Lion King, which actually brings me to my next point:



4) Frozen doesnt have crappy rip-off sequels

It doesnt. There isnt a 'Frozen 2', 'Frozen 1 and 1/2', or a 'Frozen's Olaf' tv show..... However, there IS a Lion King 2, Lion King 1 and 1/2, and a 'The Lion King's Timon and Pumba tv show........

So Frozen wins the point in not having crappy sequels + spinoffs


I'll limit myself to these 4 points so that con can have some space to introduce arguments of his own.

Over to you con :D
Raisor

Con


Overview:


While I found Frozen to be quite endearing and enjoyed the movie, it does not rise to the masterpiece status that the Lion King has achieved. Frozen may be a very good movie, but many aspects of the movie are lacking. The Lion King is a visual masterpiece with an emotionally and thematically rich story.


1. Lion King has more complex characters, Frozen tends to be shallow


Shallow characters are not inherently bad, but Frozen tries to create “deep” characters- its general failure to do so is an artistic flaw. A central theme in Frozen is that the superficial appearance of people and situations are rarely the whole story. This goal relies on creating depth of character and motivation. The Lion King is far more successful in this respect.


Pro concedes this point right away by admitting that Scar is a more complex character than Prince Hans.


Mufasa is clearly more complex than the royalty in Frozen. The parents in Frozen don’t have any personality. Mufasa is a fleshed out individual with strengths like honor, courage, and fatherly tenderness and weaknesses like brashness. The parents in Frozen are killed off as a minor plot point, where the death of Mufasa was an emotional milestone for many people. While almost every Disney movie has dead parents, The Lion King is one of the few movies that actually explores the subject with the gravity and respect it deserves. Frozen is just another clichéd data point of dead parents in kid’s movies.


The arguments in my 2) further support this point.


2. The themes, plot, and character motivation of the Lion King are better integrated. Frozen tends to rely on artificial plot point and unneeded deus ex machina.


a) Compare Simba’s decision to return to his kingdom to Elsa’s return to her kingdom.


Elsa flees her kingdom because she is unable to control her powers. She is returned to her kingdom by force and imprisoned. She then escapes from prison, is saved by Anna, and somehow discovers she can control her powers with love. Elsa’s return is characterized by general passivity- events happen to her until things change enough that she can return. The resolution of her problems happen almost haphazardly at the end of the film when she discovers how to control her powers.


Simba attempts to run from his past by fleeing the Pride Lands. Eventually he is confronted by Nala and the news that his kingdom is nearly destroyed. The cliché would be for Simba to realize he must save his kingdom, but instead Simba again turns his back on his responsibility. Simba is then enticed to follow Rafiki and is shown a vision of his father. This critical moment of character development is cinematic poetry layered with meaning. Simba realizes that he can never run from his past because his identity is constituted by the experiences that make up his life. Simba concludes that the only way to be true to himself is to own responsibility for the “murder” of his father, he finds that he must honor his father by living up to his father’s values. This scene is incredibly rich- all the preceding events of the film come develop into a major character development. Simba’s decision to return to Pride Rock is organic yet radical and momentous.


b) Compare how leadership and governance are portrayed.


In Frozen, the princesses lock themselves away, bar the public from entering their castle, and allow economic stagnation (the diplomats frequently describe how Arendelle doesn’t trade with anyone). Yet the public for some reason still love them. In real life the public would be in revolt against their parasitic absentee rulers. To underscore this point, at the end of the film Elsa capriciously proclaims that they will never trade with the countries that wronged her- embracing a vindictive isolationist policy at the expense of her country based on her ONLY interaction with foreign diplomats. Leadership and power are blasé shortcuts to getting the audience to care about the events of the movie.


The villain of Frozen is actually a better leader than the protagonists. Hans actually engages with the populace and organizes the town during the threat of winter. An argument could be made that Hans was justified in seizing power for the good of Arendelle.


In contrast, Lion King actually engages with ideas of responsibility and governance. These themes flow from the arc of the story and feed into character development. Mufasa and Simba are motivated to rule by a sense of justice and love of the balance of the kingdom. Scar wants only power and operates by cronyism. Bad governance by Scar results in mismanagement of resources and suffering in his kingdom, while good governance by Mufasa and Simba results in prosperity.


3. The Lion King is generally aesthetically superior


a) Frozen’s visually climactic scene is both conceptually and visually similar to Dr. Manhattan’s exile to Mars. While I believe that great artists often imitate and reuse ideas, Frozen adds very little to the idea and the execution left much to be desired. The ice castle felt visually flat- the building was unnecessarily planar and failed to explore the possibilities of 3D crystals and sculpture.



b) The Lion King has multiple scenes which have become embedded in Western culture’s visual language. The opening scene is visually engaging, using multiple camera angles to explore the moving landscape of animals. The framing of Rafiki holding Simba up at the top of Pride Rock is probably the most recognizable scene in the Disney catalog. The above-mentioned vision of Mufasa as a face in the clouds is similarly iconic and has made appearances on the Simpsons.


c) The Lion King’s dialogue is more memorable and poetic. Mufasa’s explanation of the “circle of life,” Rafiki’s lesson about the pain of the past, and Simba and Pumbaa’s explanation of stars are all striking pieces of dialogue.


Con’s Points are Bogus:


1) a) Pro offers no reason why bad guys who are “likeable” are worse than “real” bad guys or why it is inherently better for antagonists to be revealed in a surprise twist. There are many ways to develop antagonistic characters and none are inherently better or worse- the execution and the how well these artistic choices serve the film are all that are relevant.


b) Scar is a far more believable bad guy than Prince Hans- Scar murdered for political power then successfully deceived everyone. Pro is wrong that everyone could spot Scar as the bad guy from a mile away. The audience knows he is evil, but the characters in the film do not. A central plot point in the Lion King is that NO ONE KNOWS SCAR MURDERED MUFASA.


Prince Hans messed up his plan with a movie villain monologue. He TOLD Ana he wanted her dead then gave her time to escape. This is a classic trope that has been parodied to death as being stupid and unrealistic. A real bad guy would have reassured Ana while allowing her to die. Prince Hans’ reveal was done incredibly poorly.


2) Pro measures the quality of songs by YouTube views. This is prima facie retarded; I guess Pro thinks Justin Bieber’s “Baby “ is the greatest song of all time since it has over 1 billion YouTube views.


It’s dumb to use arbitrary commercial stats to prove a song’s quality, but the Lion King has sold over 10 million copies of its soundtrack. The Broadway musical version is the fourth longest running Broadway musical and won several Tony awards, including “Best Musical.”


The Lion King also steam-rolls Frozen in terms of box office revenue- The Lion King ranks 18, while Frozen is 109 [1].


[1] http://boxofficemojo.com...


3) This is an argument FOR the Lion King


a) Its only weird if you make it weird.


b) Lions have sex, get over it.


c) Don’t act like you didn’t have a crush on Nala when you were 5.


d) The scene teaches kids a valuable lesson about the power of Elton John.


4) Crappy sequels are irrelevant.


This debate isn’t “Frozen is better than the Lion King and its sequels.” The Lion King rears up on its hind legs and roars on its own merit.


Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Bad guys/character depth in the film

"Pro concedes this point right away by admitting that Scar is a more complex character than Prince Hans."

LOLOL, I sure as hell said no such thing! In fact my entire argument was that the exact opposite is true. Scar is a generic, typical disney villian who's very appearance gives away his entire character. Prince Hans on the other hand is a much more complex character to figure out since his motives and behavior are unpredictable.


"The parents in Frozen don’t have any personality"

Thats kind of because they died within like the first 7 minutes of the movie.....



"While almost every Disney movie has dead parents"

Why is that by the way?



"Frozen is just another clichéd data point of dead parents in kid’s movies."

The Lion King though is riddled with cliche's.... The bad guy is clearly the bad guy, the good guy is clearly the good guy, the first lion Simba meets turns out to be his true love, the lions are the king of the wilderness.... Theres a whole list of cliche's you find in the Lion King that tallied up exceed the number found in Frozen.....



2) themes, plot, and character motivation

"The resolution of [Elsa's] problems happen almost haphazardly at the end of the film when she discovers how to control her powers."

That completely ignores how the other main character in the film, Anna, was completely mistaken not once, but twice about how to resolve her problems, to the point where it nearly killed her both times....



"Simba is then enticed to follow Rafiki and is shown a vision of his father. This critical moment of character development is cinematic poetry layered with meaning"

Lol no it isnt! Simba literally just decides to return to the kingdom because his dad essentially said to him 'hey, get your sh** together'....



"Simba’s decision to return to Pride Rock is organic yet radical and momentous"

It was completely predictable and cliche. If I had a dollar every time someone who wanted to hang out with their friends in life instead of be a responsible adult ended up acting like an adult just because their uptight dad guilt-tripped them into doing so, I could pay off half of the US national debt......




3) Leadership and Governance

"In Frozen, the princesses lock themselves away, bar the public from entering their castle, and allow economic stagnation"

Actually that was their parents' decision..... Elsa and Anna were still not even 12 when those orders were carried out.




"In real life the public would be in revolt against their parasitic absentee rulers."

The parents who made those orders lived for quite a few more years. Then when they did die, rule over the kingdom transferred to the two princesses, one of which was about to become old enough to rule on her own who could quite possibly reverse the decisions of her parents...... Its actually perfectly reasonable for the public to love the two princesses since they were quite literally the symbol of better times coming in the near future.....



"Elsa capriciously proclaims that they will never trade with the countries that wronged her- embracing a vindictive isolationist policy at the expense of her country based on her ONLY interaction with foreign diplomats"

1) It was only 1 country that she severed ties with, your claim that she would never trade with countries that wronged her is completely inaccurate and borderline asinine to claim

2) The diplomat literally sent both of his body guards to try to kill Elsa, she was perfectly within reason to halt trade with a country who's top diplomat tried to assassinate her....



"Mufasa and Simba are motivated to rule by a sense of justice and love of the balance of the kingdom."

Just like Anna and Elsa at the end of the film....

"Scar wants only power and operates by cronyism"

Just like Hans....



3) Aesthetically superior

"Frozen’s visually climactic scene is both conceptually and visually similar to Dr. Manhattan’s exile to Mars"

That was a fantastic scene though!

"The ice castle felt visually flat- the building was unnecessarily planar and failed to explore the possibilities of 3D crystals and sculpture"

Thats just your biased opinion....



"The opening scene is visually engaging"

So is Frozen's.....



"using multiple camera angles to explore the moving landscape of animals"

Frozen does the same thing with the ice harvesters.....



"The Lion King’s dialogue is more memorable and poetic."

opinion....


"Mufasa’s explanation of the “circle of life,” Rafiki’s lesson about the pain of the past, and Simba and Pumbaa’s explanation of stars are all striking pieces of dialogue."

In frozen you also have the power of sisterhood, how to control fear and great power, how you cant simply lock yourself away in isolation to solve all your problems, how the first person you fall in love with might not be the right one.... The list goes on and on.....



5) Other

"Pro offers no reason why bad guys who are likable are worse than “real” bad guys"

Theyre worse because bad guys who are likable underscore the negative qualities of human behavior in a way that make them seem lees harmful characteristics than they really are, which rubs off on an audience. Real bad guys on the other hand dont try to cover up evil just so that an audience's comfort zone doesnt get violated, real bad guys demonstrate that there is evil out there and that its ugly.



"or why it is inherently better for antagonists to be revealed in a surprise twist."

Shock value, duh.



"Scar is a far more believable bad guy than Prince Hans"

Hes just a more cliche bad guy than Prince Hans.....



"A central plot point in the Lion King is that NO ONE KNOWS SCAR MURDERED MUFASA."

And a central plot point in Frozen is that no one knew that Hans was an evil bastard!



"He TOLD Ana he wanted her dead then gave her time to escape."

He left her to die and tried to kill an imprisoned Elsa, the one who represented a much greater threat to his plan at the time....



"Prince Hans’ reveal was done incredibly poorly."

Do you plan on using anything else besides your own opinion for your arguments? Nobody was surprised to see Scar push Mufasa to his death in The Lion King, while a crapload of people were surprised to see that Hans was actually a bad guy



"This is prima facie retarded; I guess Pro thinks Justin Bieber’s “Baby “ is the greatest song of all time since it has over 1 billion YouTube views."

Justin Bieber's song 'Baby' didnt win any awards idiot, 'Let it Go' racked up all kinds of awards for being a good song.



"The Lion King also steam-rolls Frozen in terms of box office revenue- The Lion King ranks 18, while Frozen is 109"

The chart is adjusted for inflation, and even then the Lion King's total comes out to about $700 million, Frozen meanwhile has already topped $1 Billion in box office income (http://en.wikipedia.org...(2013_film)#Box_office ), yet your chart it only gives Frozen $400 million.

So your source is completely flawed.



"Its only weird if you make it weird.

Implying that lions had sex in a childrens film while the song 'can you feel the love tonight' is weird no matter how you look at it



"Don’t act like you didn’t have a crush on Nala when you were 5."

Im not into bestiality, youre thinking of ADreamOfliberty.....


"Crappy sequels are irrelevant."

Oh theyre relevant alright, it shows that the production company behind 'The Lion King' were only interested in cashing out and making a fortune off of it. If the values of the Lion King were actually respected, then the film's legacy would have been preserved and stand the test of time. Instead it was sold down the river with two sequels made just to make money.
Raisor

Con

1) Complex Characters

a) Hans

Pro overstates the case that Hans’ “motives and behavior are unpredictable.” All his actions can be clearly explained by his true motive and there’s nothing really surprising about his behavior in light of his true motive. Once Hans reveals he is evil, he gives a clichéd movie villain speech and makes clichéd movie villain mistakes that lead to his undoing.

Pro never addresses my point that Hans has a terrible reveal and stupid villain monologue.

b) Scar

Pro ignores my point that Scar is an “obvious villain” because the movie SHOWS US HE IS A VILLAIN. All the characters in the Lion King are unaware of Scar’s villainy. Mufasa trusts his brother, leading to his death. Following Mufasa’s death, Simba believes Scar that Simba killed Mufasa and follows Scar’s advice to “run away and never come back.”

All of Hans’ strong points are shared by Scar! Scar teaches the same lesson about how evil people wear masks and often appear trust-worthy. Scar abuses the trust of people around him - he makes a dramatic speech before the Pride about Simba’s “murder,” he also tricks Simba into going to the elephant grave yard.

Scar is a rounded character. He manipulates people and has a distinctive bearing and facial expression that conveys his belief that he is superior and disdainful of others. He was afraid of and felt inferior to his brother Mufasa. Hans is just generic good guy until it is revealed his a generic bad guy.

c) Parents

Pro doesn’t refute that the Lion King shows a developed bond between father and son and that Mufasa is a deep character. The Lion King is firing on all cylinders, whereas Frozen often coasts on superficial plot development.

d) Sidekicks

Even the sidekicks in the Lion King are better developed. Timon and Pumbaa both have backstories about how they are outcasts; they each have distinct personalities.

Tying into my 2) argument, they are crucial to the plot and thematic development of the Lion King, serving as a foil to Mufasa. The Hakuna Matata philosophy of “No worries” contrasts with the philosophy of responsibility that Mufasa represents. Simba’s friendship with the two exposes the motivation and development of Simba- for example when the three discuss what they think stars are.

The reindeer and snowman in Frozen are gimmicks. While adorable and funny, you could take them out of the movie and leave the story unaltered. Kristoff is more developed, but even he is mostly just the woodsman to offer material support to Anna.

All the characters of the Lion King serve the goals of the movie.

2) Themes, plot, character

a) Pro concedes that Elsa is passive and the resolution to her arc happens jarringly at the end of the movie. Pro’s only response is that Anna struggles with her problems. Even if Anna is a decent character, she doesn’t compare to Simba.

Anna is deluded that she love Hans, everyone tells her she’s being unrealistic, she ignores them. There is no character development- Anna gets in danger, runs to Hans, Hans tries to kill her. This is when she realizes she actually love Kristoff - AFTER her original crush tries to kill her. Anna isn’t making big character-driven decisions or struggling with how to come to terms with her past, she is struggling toward fairly well defined goals.

Pro’s characterization of Simba’s vision is emblematic of his entire argument- it is a superficial mischaracterization.

Let’s break down the scene:

https://www.youtube.com...

Rafiki tells Simba to look into the lake to see his father, but Simba sees only himself and is disappointed. Simba’s initial lack of comprehension symbolizes that he has been living his life superficially- he needs to “look harder” at himself. Simba has little respect for himself- he is disappointed at his own reflection, especially compared to the impressive image of his father. The realization that his reflection “contains” the image of his father surprises Simba. Note- Rafiki creates ripples in the water, distorting the reflection, subtly indicating that the image of Mufasa is being reconstituted by Simba out of his own distorted reflection. Simba’s reflection transforming into Mufasa’s communicates that Simba’s identity contains his father’s.

The reflection in the pond symbolizes what the ghost explicitly says. Simba has forgotten the values of his father and the community his father represented. Simba lives superficially, rejecting the responsibilities that come with Simba’s true self. The responsibility Simba has to the Pridelands is not some external burden placed on him, but is contained “inside him.” They are an important part of his identity and sense of self- by “looking inside” Simba will realize his obligation.

The vision doesn’t say “get your sh** together,” the vision commands Simba to engage in the critical introspection that will alter Simba’s outlook- the ghost commands Simba to “remember.” This isn’t a clichéd guilt-trip. Simba struggles to accept this- he protests that he is “not who I used to be,” but this is false because his past defines who is- he can never escape it. The whole scene is a metaphor for a deep self-appraisal.

This moment is organic; it contains the entire movie up to this point- we know what Mufasa represents, we know why Simba rejected it. It is a commentary on Simba’s initial flight- what started as fleeing for his life became a flight from the hard facts of who he is and what he has done.

This scene represents how the Lion King is an incredibly “tight” movie- everything that happens, all the plot point and themes and characters, are all tied together coherently. Frozen tends to be “loose”- Hans didn’t really NEED to be evil; the dukes were already trying to kill Elsa and Anna was already learning her love was superficial. It was an interesting development but ultimately sort of superfluous to the story and sort of ham-fisted in execution.

3) Leadership and Governance

Elsa clearly plans on leaving the castle in lockdown after her coronation- Elsa tells Anna that the castle “can’t” be open all the time, that the coronation is an exception.

Elsa acted poorly in cutting off trade- the diplomat tried to kill Elsa because he believed her dangerous. Remember Elsa endangered the lives of the public, including the diplomat, at the coronation AND WAS CAUSING ETERNAL WINTER. Maybe Elsa should have considered the complexity of the situation.

Extend that the Lion King displays different styles of governance and comments on the difference between cronyism and justice. Again, Frozen uses governance in a shallow way while the Lion King gives substance to the subject.

3) Aesthetically superior

Pro doesn’t deny that the imagery of the Lion King has become embedded in our culture. Holding the cub Simba on pride rock, the ghost of Mufasa, and betrayal of Mufasa have been recreated innumerable times in popular culture.

5) Con’s Case

1) Pro’s criteria are superficial- he arbitrarily values “twists” and “real bad guys.” My criteria are holistic and accepting of artistic choice: movies should be evaluated based on how well the artistic choices advance the artistic goals of the film. Sometimes twists are valuable, sometimes they are unnecessary. An obvious villain worked great for the Joker in the Dark Knight, but sometimes villains are less clear.

My argument is that the artistic choices of the Lion King work better together, while Frozen’s do not.

2) Again, commercial benchmarks are stupid. Both films were very successful, but the Lion King is more successful. Pro’s source is worldwide gross, but even then the Lion King is just short of Frozen’s $1b UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION- this means Lion King mad almost as much as Frozen, but in 1994 dollars. Then there’s the award-winning musical…

3) The “sex” scene argument is stupid. It’s just a scene showing how Simba’s relationship with Nala is becoming romantic.

4) Motivations and sequels are irrelevant. This debate is about the quality of two movies, all that matters is how the films stand up.

Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

1) Villians

"All his actions can be clearly explained by his true motive and there’s nothing really surprising about his behavior in light of his true motive"

Yeah, emphasis on that last part though 'in light of his true motive'.... You dont know what his true motive is until almost the very end of the movie and only after you get severely mindf*cked by the big reveal.....



"Pro never addresses my point that Hans has a terrible reveal and stupid villain monologue."

Thats because its just a terrible and stupid opinion.....



"Pro ignores my point that Scar is an “obvious villain”"

I didnt ignore it, I used it as my argument. Everyone and their braindead grandmother could tell Scar was the villian from a mile away, and that he was the most cliche'd villian you could think of. His name is SCAR for fricks sake.... How more cliche can you get than that?



"Hans is just generic good guy until it is revealed his a generic bad guy."

You realize that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever right? You cant be a generic good guy when you are really a generic bad guy, that literally goes against the very definition of what the word 'generic' means.....



2) Sidekicks

"The reindeer and snowman in Frozen are gimmicks. While adorable and funny, you could take them out of the movie and leave the story unaltered"

Without Kristoff and Olaf Anna wouldnt have found her sister Elsa up in the mountain, Anna wouldnt have been able to make it back to Arrendale alive, and she wouldnt have been able to live after being left to die by Hans in a locked room. Take out the characters in Frozen and people would actually start dying, if you took out Simon and Pumba in the Lion King then everyone still gets to stay alive.



3) Plot

" Anna isn’t making big character-driven decisions or struggling with how to come to terms with her past, she is struggling toward fairly well defined goals."

And that counts as character development.....



"The vision doesn’t say “get your sh** together,”"

I literally was paraphrasing and summarizing that scene. When I asked you to stop relying on your opinion for your arguments, I didnt mean resort to taking my arguments completely out of context......



" It was an interesting development but ultimately sort of superfluous to the story and sort of ham-fisted in execution."

Aaaaaand youre back to opinions......




4) Governance

"Remember Elsa endangered the lives of the public, including the diplomat, at the coronation AND WAS CAUSING ETERNAL WINTER"

All of which was unintentional and on ACCIDENT, in fact she literally undid all the damage and brought back summer at the end of the movie....



5) Other arguments

"he arbitrarily values “twists” and “real bad guys.” "

Call me crazy, but voters may consider antagonists and the plot of a movie to be important to whether or not a movie is any good.....




"Both films were very successful, but the Lion King is more successful."

A good chunk of the money that The Lion King made was bolstered by 20 years worth of DVD sales, plus several the re-release of the movie in theaters (http://en.wikipedia.org... ), plus with the DVD sales of the crappy spin-off sequels that were made in addition to the film as well..... Frozen meanwhile has only recently become available to own on DVD, and in 20 years the amount of money it made will go up as well.



"Then there’s the award-winning musical…"

Then there's the crappy sequels that you keep trying to deny....



"The “sex” scene argument is stupid."

We'll leave that to the voters, chances are they will think its kind of weird that the lions in The Lion King CLEARLY had crazy animal sex in a movie meant for children.



=================================================================================================

Lets wrap this up nicely:

The biggest indicators for what makes a Disney movie a good movie is the plot, the songs in the film, and the characters in the film

Plot)

- The Lion King's plot was predictable from the beginning, with nobody being surprised to see scar kill off Mufasa to seize power or to see that the teenage Simba doesnt want to be a responsible adult and just wants to hang with his friends. There was cliche's all over the place ranging from Scar being a clear villian, to the dad being a strict parent, to the idea of an unambitious teenager transitioning into an adult due to guilt from his parent(s)......

- Frozen has one of the most unbelievable twists you could see in ANY kind of movie, let alone a disney movie, the concept of love between siblings is something that is truly unique in terms of movie plots, it blows the cliche of love at first sight always working out completely to hell, and really shows that the real villians in life arent always the ones you can see coming from a mile away, it could very well be the very person you trust the most.

Songs)

- Frozen hands down had better songs in the film than the Lion King, as proven by the number of views, likes, and awards the Frozen songs racked in compared to the Lion King's songs, an argument which con flat out dropped

Characters)

The side characters provide comic relief and help out the main character in both films, the protagonists in both films have some flaws they eventually overcome, and the parents are killed off somewhere in the first half of the movie. In those regards, both films have a lot in common. The main difference though is the villains in both films. In The Lion King you can quickly figure out who the bad guy is and what he wants due to how cliche'd of a villain he is, but in Frozen you are completely blindsided by who the true antagonist in the film is and what their motives truly are.

========================================================================================

Final summary

Frozen has a far better villain than the Lion King, a far more riveting plot and climax, better music/songs, does NOT have an implied awkward sex scene in the middle of the movie, and is a far less cliche'd movie than the Lion King is. T

he Lion King is a great movie and all, but Frozen is simply better

I would like to thank Raisor for an awesome a** debate :D

Raisor

Con

Overview:

I advocate a holistic framework to evaluate the quality of films: we should judge by how well the artistic choices serve the artistic goals of the film. This framework considers all aspects of the film- character, plot, music, visual effect- without imposing arbitrary judgments.

My opponent advances a framework in which a movie is “better” based on how well it conforms to Pro’s narrow preferences: a movie is better if it has a big twist, better if the villain’s motives are hidden, better if its songs have more Youtube views. As I argued in R3, this framework is arbitrary and counter-intuitive. Under Pro’s framework, Hans is a better villain than Heath Ledger’s Joker or Darth Vader simple because you KNOW right away that the Joker and Vader are bad guys (you can tell just by looking at them!).

When evaluating which movie is better, judges should consider which movie best achieves its artistic goals.

Line-by-line Rebuttal of Pro’s R4:

Hans:

Pro misses my point- Hans is NOT “unpredictable.” He acts like a predictable generic good guy, then we find out he is the bad guy, then Hans acts like a predictable generic bad guy. Hans is such a predictable and generic bad guy that he gives a generic and predictable movie villain monologue then leaves the protagonist unsupervised so that the protagonist can escape. This is the definition of a generic villain routine.

A surprise reveal of hidden motive doesn’t make a character complex or unpredictable.

Note that Pro offers ZERO analysis of Hans’ character! All of Hans supposed strength rest on the surprise reveal- that is all Pro has to say about Hans. Without that reveal, Hans is not an interesting character.

Scar:

Pro repeats that Scar is an “obvious villain” without addressing that this is only so because the movie shows us Scar’s secret plots. The characters in the movie don’t know Scar is a villain- they even trust Scar and make decisions based on his advice.

Pro ignores that Scar captures all the advantages of Hans- Scar shows that seemingly trustworthy people are often phony. As Simba’s uncle, Scar shows how authority figures can mislead.

Pro also ignores my character analysis of Scar in R3 showing complexity of character. Compare this to Pro’s total lack of analysis regarding Hans.

Sidekicks:

Pro ignores that the reindeer is a gimmick. I concede that Kristoff is needed, but Pro doesn’t refute that Kristoff is one-dimensional and offers little by way of character development. Olaf is superfluous as he does nothing that Kristoff’s character could not have done.

Pro says “take out Timon…everyone still gets to stay alive” ignoring that Timon and Pumbaa SAVE SIMBAS LIFE IN THE DESERT.

Pro counters my argument that the sidekicks in Lion King are a vehicle to expose Simba’s evolution of character and act as a foil to Mufasa by noting that Olaf helped Anna up a mountain. This shows how every aspect of the Lion King serves the artistic vision of the film, while Froze tends toward superficiality.

Plot:

Pro says I just “rely on opinion,” despite the scene analysis I offer as an example of how Lion King infuses plot with symbolism and meaning. Pro doesn’t refute or even acknowledge my analysis, he just brushes it off.

Pro offers no explanation of how Anna shows character development, he just asserts that pursuing goals counts as development. He ignores my point that Anna’s major “development”- the realization that she loves Kristoff- only happens once Hans tries to kill her! Compare this to my detailed explanation of how Simba is shown to make deep and difficult decisions.

Pro also concedes that Elsa is a passive protagonist and that her storyline is resolved haphazardly in a lazy deus-ex-machina.

Governance:

It is irrelevant that Elsa only ALMOST slaughtered her kingdom on ACCIDENT. The diplomats had reasonable grounds to fear Elsa and want her dead. Elsa responded by whimsically cutting of trade relations without even trying to come to a diplomatic solution.

Pro also ignores that Elsa planned to continue the castle policy of shutting the doors and ignoring the kingdom. Elsa and Anna were terrible rulers.

Inclusion of Leadership and Governance was an artistic choice Frozen made, but they fare very poorly by it. In contrast, the Lion King speaks volumes on loyalty to community, social order, justice, and the folly of cronyism.

Other arguments:

Pro’s argument about DVD sales supports my argument- COMMERCIAL STATISTICS ARE A STUPID WAY TO COMPARE THE QUALITY OF MOVIES. It's apples to oranges.

If Pro insists on doing so, then the fact is Lion King is more commercially successful than Frozen- regardless of Pro’s predictions for future DVD sales. After all, maybe people will forget about Frozen in 20 years. We KNOW that after 20 years the Lion King is still a huge force in popular culture.

Sequels are irrelevant- the Resolution is about “the Lion King” not “the Lion King and its sequels.”

The argument about the “sex” scene is stupid. Again, it’s just a romance scene; Pro is the one calling it a sex scene. Only vote on this argument if you can post in the comments a screen shot of Simba penetrating Nala – AND IT HAS TO BE FROM THE MOVIE.

Evaluation of Arguments:

Almost all of Pro’s arguments rest on the “twist” in Frozen. All of Pro’s character analysis rests on this, as does his claim that Frozen was less predictable. But Frozen wasn’t written by M. Night Shamalayan, the goal of the movie isn’t to explode your head with a twist. Frozen is about the relationship between two sisters, self-expression, and the nature of love and loyalty; Frozen’s “twist” only exists in service of exploring those goals. Frozen is a movie that doesn’t want to be shallow, it wants to develop deep characters and themes. This is why it falls short of the Lion King- it just doesn’t deliver on the goals it is pursuing.

Even if Pro wins that Hans is a superior villain, which he won’t, I have still provided far superior analysis of how Simba is a much deeper character than Elsa and Anna and that the sidekicks in the Lion King are more complex. The protagonist is who the movie is about- a strong protagonist counts more than a strong villain.

This is especially striking since Pro claims one of Frozen’s themes is “you can’t lock yourself away to solve all your problems.” But I explained how Elsa repeatedly locks herself away, behaves passively, and receives an abrupt solution to her problems. Frozen doesn’t deliver on the plot and character development needed to support one of its central themes, illustrating just one way Frozen falls short.

Contrast this to all the analysis I made regarding Simba’s development- I am clearly winning the protagonist side of the debate.

You can cross-apply the above analysis to show that I am winning that Lion King is far superior in terms of thematic development. Pro offers no explanation of how Frozen develops theme, while I have offered ample analysis. Thematic development is another goal that Frozen fails to deliver on, while the Lion King excels.

Pro’s arguments about songs on Youtube and a 2 minute romance scene are minor- I think I won these points but even if I didn’t, the other aspects of the movies are much more important.

Finally, I have shown that the aesthetics of the Lion King are superior. I argued that the visual scenes of the Lion King are superior and that these visuals have become embedded in our cultural language, as the image of pride rock is. Even if you dismiss these arguments as “just my opinion,” I still have offered a scene analysis of Simba’s vision that shows the poetry of visual imagery and dialogue of the Lion King. Pro offers no argument for similar aesthetic achievements in Frozen.

While Frozen has aspects that work well, it also has many that do not. The superiority of the Lion King ultimately comes down to its unity of vision and sleek execution. Everything works toward developing deep characters that give life to complex themes of responsibility and identity, all while maintaining a rich aesthetic.

Debate Round No. 4
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Duckinator 1 year ago
Duckinator
Man I'm totally with frozen!The Times of the Lion king have passed.All hail the new king!
Posted by WorkingGlass 1 year ago
WorkingGlass
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Posted by WorkingGlass 1 year ago
WorkingGlass
The villains in Frozen had basically no motive. At the end of the movie they just decide to try to kill the protagonist for no apparent reason besides the fact that for no apparent reason at all the protagonist has ice powers. The villain in the lion king was greedy and was tired of being third in rule and wanted to have a chance to become the king.

The protagonist in Frozen has ice powers for no reason and the second protagonist falls in love twice for no reason. (Probably from being locked in a castle forever because their emotionless parents took a field trip.) The second protagonist is whiny because they want to marry someone and just this stupid notion alone causes the first protagonist to have a mental breakdown and freeze everything only to live in an ice castle for the rest of eternity. The second protagonist then goes and gets rejected but then goes back and leads the pointless villains to the first protagonist where they attack them for no reason.

The protagonist in The Lion King gets back-stabbed by the villain and escapes to the wilderness, finds their purpose again, and comes back to dethrone the villain. (Makes a lot more sense.)
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
agree w grand. raisors loss in this is a shame.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Con should have won, def.

"Nobody was surprised to see Scar push Mufasa to his death in The Lion King,"

Actually, I was extremely surprised when I saw it for the first time when I was like 5 years old.

Both sides refuted some of the other side's errors, but Con turned out to be right overall. I was also disappointed with deux of something or whatever it's called, like when Elsa's parents died. I mean, I barely understood they had actually died, it happened so fast.
Posted by ScrinTech 2 years ago
ScrinTech
@imabench RIP
Posted by Allthenamesaretacken 2 years ago
Allthenamesaretacken
Seriously?
Posted by Raisor 2 years ago
Raisor
Carefule Ima, don't let the DDO elite see that sort of comment.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
By all means go get him, that kid is as dumb as a sack of hammers....
Posted by Cat_Lover 2 years ago
Cat_Lover
And my profile picture is my cat, actually, brb, im going to get macgreggor.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
imabenchRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several vulgar comments such as "prepare your anus", so conduct to Con. Pro also made several spelling mistakes throughout, so S/G to Con. One argument really decided this: the predictable villain. Pro made great points about how a less predictable villain is better than a more predictable one, and it seemed like Con only tried to rebut that point by saying Scar was unpredictable to the characters, which is not what the argument was. Args to Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
imabenchRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It was an interesting debate for sure. Both sides are basically winning their arguments (with some confusion on the details), so for me, it really comes down to whose framework is stronger for evaluating which film was better. Pro provides more objective reasoning, though I have a difficult time linking his objective evaluations of the films and their pieces to an actual evaluation of Frozen being better than the Lion King. Con's arguments are more subjective, though they have enough objective elements to provide a measure of reason to it. They are significantly better linked to the question of "better or not?" that I have a hard time discounting them. Pro probably could have spent some more time justifying why his choices were a stronger evaluation of the two movies, but he practically dismisses the issue, leaving Con's argumentation as the stronger one establishing framework (though he probably should he spent more time on it before R4). Hence, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by fazz 2 years ago
fazz
imabenchRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
imabenchRaisorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate to read. Con approached this from a holistic standpoint, Pro from a rather reductionist and moral standpoint. Full RFD in comments.