The Instigator
Soragirl7
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mysery
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Were Disney Movies Better In The 1990s? I SAY YES!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/9/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,198 times Debate No: 92559
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Soragirl7

Pro

During Disney's Renaissance days, their movies always had beautiful animation that captured human emotions in unique ways. They had touching musical scores that served to tie in the story line and great voice actors and actresses. All the movies had their own original and distinct animation styles separate from each other, setting the atmosphere for us to follow. Look at the distinct difference between Hercules animation style VS Beauty and The Beast VS Aladdin...all of them distinctly different in animation.
http://images5.fanpop.com...

https://katejohns619.files.wordpress.com...

http://www.musogato.com...

And most importantly, the movies had excellent stories that served to evolve the characters. None of the characters were perfect, but they evolved throughout the story, learning their lessons and becoming better people. And each of the characters whether it was a carpet or tea pot served to help the main characters evolve.

Movies like Tangled, Brave, and Frozen don't do it. Not even Big Hero 6. All of the animation is repetitive with no animation identity. Anna looks like Rapunzel with red hair. There's hardly any distinction between the animations. This is Tangled VS Frozen VS Big Hero 6.
http://cdn.avsforum.com...

http://www.rotoscopers.com...

http://womenwriteaboutcomics.com...

They all look like goofy big headed freaks. Tangled and Frozen look like they are the same movie in a different setting. There's no emotion behind the way these characters were made. They are just there. And as far as character evolution, none of their side characters help the character evolve in any way.
As far as story, the stories seem unoriginal neither are they creative. Frozen didn't honestly have a story. It had a good idea, but it didn't have a story. There was no direction, no character evolution, all the characters pretty much remained the same. The only one that changed was Elsa, and her "change" happened very early. There was no transition. None of the songs served to tie in the story, except Love is an Open Door, For The First Time In Forever, and Let It Go. The rest were just random songs for no reason. There used to be a time movies would focus on making the best story lines and giving a setting that would serve to help the characters evolve. Now, it is all about how things like CGI, silly humor, and social agendas. These things, in my opinion do not make a movie timeless. These kinds of movie cannot resonate in the hearts of people thousands of years from now. They will only be trends until something better comes along.
Mysery

Con

Disney's Renaissance animation was certainly remarkable for the time period, but modern animation has improved upon these methods by leaps and bounds.

Firstly, it's false that older Disney animation was not repetitive. Beauty and the Beast, a movie you mentioned, contains a recycled scene from Sleeping Beauty:
http://images.techtimes.com...

101 Dalmatians (1996) also stole from The Jungle Book and Cinderella.
http://rebloggy.com...
https://youtu.be...

Really, repetitiveness is just a drawback to animation in general, so we really can't hold that against newer movies. Besides, the problem isn't as persistent as you claim. The color schemes in Tangled and Frozen are completely different, with Tangled having warmer colors. That's an appropriate touch! Big Hero 6 is missing the fairy-esque-quality that Frozen and Tangled share.

As for character design, modern characters aren't all the same. Check out the actual contrast between Anna and Rapunzel.
https://foxhugh.files.wordpress.com...
Source: https://foxhugh.com...

Regardless, internal character development is what really matters. It's untrue that Elsa's character change is without transition. She starts off the film as a carefree child, who then experiences a trauma, which forces her to become reserved. Trauma does cause very fast change. Then, Elsa snaps when put in a highly stressful situation. This is also realistic, as she was confronted with a crowd of people she doesn't know how to lead; her sister, who she hasn't seen since the aforementioned trauma; and the real threat of exposing her powers: the source of her debilitating shame. Consequently, she experiences an awakening (Let It Go). This is not her true character change, though. In reality, she's just recovering from the trauma. The changing happens later, (and more slowly), as Anna helps Elsa deal with the self-hatred her powers caused. She learns that magic can be good. Her character settles back into a balanced state.

Anna also had to cope with the consequences of an unhealthy childhood. She was lonely enough to fall for someone upon just meeting him, and then learns throughout the film how to have a healthy relationship by interacting with Kristoff.

The music in Frozen is very necessary.
Frozen Heart opens the movie and gives us the setting. It also foreshadows the motif of ice, and the involvement of Kristoff.
Do You Want to Build a Snowman sets up Elsa and Anna's conflicts to be resolved.
In Summer is indeed mostly just for fun, but that's not necessarily a problem. Kids love it, and these movies do have to appeal to children. It also sets off Olaf's character as a sidekick, which is necessary to give Disney its fun atmosphere.
Fixer Upper is an excellent showcase of Kristoff's character and his relationship with Anna. It also creates contrast and shock when Anna collapses.

(BTW: Just to clarify, I'm assuming you have the burden of proof here? So, it's your job to prove that Renaissance Disney was better than modern Disney, and I have to refute what you say. Or should I be actively trying to prove that modern Disney is better?)
Debate Round No. 1
Soragirl7

Pro

Since this is a topic about my personal feelings based off of examination of both the 90s and present Disney movies, it does not require any proof other than what I have observed and the pictures of the animation itself to show you what I see. This is a debate based off of my personal observation of Disney's newest movies VS 90s movies. My argument is that I do not believe the newest Disney movies are developed in a manner that is done as well as the 1990s movies. Note: I am not talking about movies before the 1990s such as 101 Dalmations and Jungle Book. I'm specifically talking about Disney's Renaissance, which was much better in my opinion than both pre-Renaissance and afterwards.

Also, my argument was not about the SCENES being different from one another....my argument was that the ANIMATION had distinctions from one another. Meaning the way the cartoons were animated were distinctly different from one another. Look at the links above. These animated distinctions served to give the movie its own personal flare and emotion, setting the tone for its own movie. In other words the way Hercules was animated had its own distinct animated look in comparison to the way Tarzan was animated and Beauty and The Beast was animated.

The picture you showed of Elsa and Anna feels like "reaching". If you honestly look at them, there is no STRONG distinction in the way they look besides their hair and clothes. They only have slight differences, which to me shows a lack of creativity on the animators part. Any time a person had to go through such great lengths to make arrows pointing out the differences....that means that the characters cannot be identified without closer examination. Which to me means that the characters were not that originally done. Ironically, their personalities are also too similar to be seen as distinct characters as well...to me this is a lack of creativity on the animators part. Either that or 3-D animators have not quite found a way to make characters distinctively different from one another like the 90s Renaissance has been able to do with 2-D animation.

As far as Elsa's evolution, it didn't seem like she evolved over time. In the beginning, yes she closed herself off in her room as a child, etc but this was at the VERY BEGINNING of the movie. In most of the movie Elsa was in her ice castle. And then she suddenly realized out of the blue her love for her sister at the end. They hardly even rekindled their relationship throughout the movie. It felt more like a random change of heart than a transition. Elsa did not GRADUALLY change her heart towards Anna and her powers, she randomly finds these things out at the end of the movie. Anna only visited her one time to talk before being chased out.
To be honest, Anna hardly had any interaction throughout the entire movie with her sister. There was hardly a sister story. Most of the story was spent on Anna and Kristoff's love development. In fact only 30 minutes out of 102 minutes of the movie was spent talking about Elsa, and fewer minutes were spent talking about Elsa and Anna's relationship. The movie ended up being quite messy as a result, because despite Disney "selling" this as a "sister story" it ended up being more of a romance story.
Anna was the main character in this movie (Elsa the deuteragonist). Anna's evolution was lacking even more than Elsa. In the end she didn't even seem to have learned anything from her experiences. It felt like Hans betrayal happened, but it didn't seem to have any sort of affect on her character. She had no change of heart what-so-ever; no sense of self discovery, no evident regret...nothing. Anna's evolution was not readily evident (for someone who is supposed to be the main character). What kind of person did she evolve to become? What did she learn about herself and others? Who knows, because honestly her evolution was about as bad as Aurora's. Anything that she learned can only be ASSUMED by the viewers, but Anna herself never made mention or gave us hint of regret, change of heart, or self-discovery in this movie. Did Anna honestly learn from her mistake? Or did she just assume that Hans was a bad guy, but she somehow still believes in love at first sight? The movie leaves us with nothing. The creators of Frozen did a sloppy job with their characters' development. I don't feel like I learned anything about Anna throughout the movie that I didn't know from the beginning of the movie. Nothing was revealed about her. She remained stagnant throughout.

You stated: "Anna also had to cope with the consequences of an unhealthy childhood. She was lonely enough to fall for someone upon just meeting him, and then learns throughout the film how to have a healthy relationship by interacting with Kristoff."
It honestly did not feel that Anna learned throughout the movie that Kristoff was the one for her. In fact, she didn't even seem interested in him throughout the movie until Hans dumped her. Kristoff showed signs of love towards her more than she showed any signs of love towards him. Again, the creators of the movie did not do a good job of showing this transition. Her feelings for Kristoff were not evident until the end.

While I will admit Do You Want To Build A Snowman was a good song to transition the movie (And so was Fixxer Upper) I felt Olaf's song and Reindeer Are Better Than People was unnecessary. The movie already had nine songs, longer than any Disney movie. What was the point in putting in those two unnecessary songs? Ironically, both of the characters were lacking integration in the movie. Olaf was just a useless character who failed to help in "evolving" Anna. He was just there...to be a joke. Kristoff, while being the lover, we never get any mention of his past after the beginning. He never even mentions he was there the day Anna was helped by the trolls! He was underdeveloped. But I guess that's what happens when the movie is nothing but music filled...Note, that I said the movie is only 102 minutes long...with all of those song numbers, what room does that give for character and story development? It felt like the movie broke out in song every 5 minutes.

While I do believe character development is the most important part of a story, the other elements usually help us to connect with the story of the characters. They all are on the same "team". After all, cartoons are meant to portray art in formation. So the animation is just as important as the story and characters. Cartoons are meant to give us visual concepts even if they do not have a story. But at least when they do have a story, I appreciate a well developed story more than a sloppy one.
Mysery

Con

I did look at the links above. There are two main ways to give animation a "personal flare." One is the look. The other is the movement. I proved already that the movement is not overly unique in Disney's Renaissance. I also proved that modern Disney movies have their own look and tone, mostly using color schemes.

It's not a lack of creativity that leads to similar characters. It's limitations of newer forms of animation that we haven't had a chance yet to fully explore. Still, this newer animation is superior enough that it is better than the Renaissance even in these earlier stages. Besides, even if the similar starting blocks are visible, it's simply untrue that the characters "cannot be identified without closer examination." Similar does not equal identical. The fact that there were minute details for my picture to point out proves that characterization was considered in the design of these princesses. Actually, having small differences proves that a lot of thought was put into it, instead of just changing the face shape and calling it good. They actually thought about details that these different people would have. It fits Anna's innocence to have a round face and freckles.

The modern animation allows for an all new era of movies. The whole point of Big Hero 6 was the cool effects. Baymax wouldn't have been as lovable if we couldn't almost feel his fluid-like texture. The sight gags were the best part. Visuals also created the action and suspense. Those battle scene animations would not have worked at all in 2D. So, as you can see, even modern Disney can survive based on looks.

Elsa's ending change is not sudden. She starts her stay in the ice castle looking happy and free. As she remains there, she gradually becomes more distressed. Anna's visit causes a lot of concern for her, but so does the attack. Everything builds. Not all the character development is shown directly through plot, though. You have to look at her facial expressions and body language. These things can be more clearly animated today because of superior animation technology. This is why not every change needs a whole scene devoted to only characterization. You can see Elsa changing even when other things are going on.

Besides, Elsa's change had to slow down slightly while she hid in the castle. Anna needed a chance to develop.

It's a sister story because the ending is all about sisterly love, as was the inciting incident. All conflicts center around it. It doesn't call for 24/7 interaction.

You say that too much of the movie is spent on Anna and Kristoff's relationship development, but then you also claim Anna didn't develop. These interactions with Kristoff were her development. She never could have had conversations like that at the beginning of the movie. She was too awkward as a result of her lack of social experience. Throughout the film, she first learns to talk, then to develop true romantic feelings. No, she didn't have a monologue explaining everything. That would be boring. Her actions show her character change. We learn that she is capable. At the beginning, Anna is a bumbling idiot. She isn't coordinated enough to walk around a palace. Throughout the film, she has to stretch her abilities.

No, Anna's relationship did not play out in a stereotypical Disney fashion. Their flirting wasn't obvious. That's how it works in real life, though. They hid their feelings at first because they hadn't learned yet how to interact. By the end, we can see the love. Her feelings for Kristoff as a friend were evident. She had to learn to have a friendship before she could have a relationship. Disney had to make their relationship more subtle to show a contrast between Kristoff and Hans. Kristoff had to take it slow.

Reindeer Are Better Than People is barely long enough to qualify as a song. Still, it does show Kristoff's awkward character and explain his style of flirting. Anyway, it serves the same purpose as In Summer: to be funny. We must remember that these are children movies. Kids love Olaf. I've worked with kids and done Frozen style activities with them- Olaf is always a favorite. Movies have to have development and appeal to adults, but they can't forget their target audience. The reason Frozen was so commercially successful is because kids love it as well as adults. There's nothing wrong with having some endearing comic relief.

The songs serve as character development. Music doesn't mean everything stops. It advances the film, as I already explained.

Kristen doesn't need a ton of background because it doesn't matter. What would it add to the film? We can already tell his character because of the way he talks and moves. When you have good acting and animation, you can cut back exposition time.

Overall, modern Disney movies are just immersive and beautiful. The animation does indeed tell an attractive story. It looks cool and realistic. Animation is only improving, and the stories are well-developed.
Debate Round No. 2
Soragirl7

Pro

I think you missed my first point about animation. Implementing similar scenes is different from captivating those scenes with their own colorful style. The movies overall are more easily distinguishable because the style of their animations were different from one another. Tangled is slightly lighter than Frozen...that's it? That is hardly a difference. These movies could easily be placed in the same setting and it wouldn't make a difference. The biggest issue is that developers seem more interested in making the animation look as progressive as possible rather than actually capturing the feeling of the story and characters.

You stated: Still, this newer animation is superior enough that it is better than the Renaissance even in these earlier stages.

In what way is it superior? Because to me the animation is quite inferior. Progression seems to have taken precedence over emotional captivation, that is what I see. And I don't see it getting better. Why else would companies decide to use 3D animation over 2D animation? Their only purpose is to be progressive not creative. They want to make something that can be the next big "trend" in animation. But guess what? Movie animation that is built on that cannot last for years to come. Why? Because computer technology is constantly changing. Whereas with the 2D animation it is almost like a painting coming to life. Paintings will never go out of style because it is something we can create with our own hands. This is why it will always have a more personal touch. Whereas 3D production of characters from these companies are all about making it look real rather than capturing the imagination of people who watch it.

I disagree that Big Hero 6 could not have worked. If you have ever watched The Iron Giant, I think 2D has been able to capture technology in quite a unique and beautiful way.

You stated: "Besides, even if the similar starting blocks are visible, it's simply untrue that the characters "cannot be identified without closer examination." Similar does not equal identical. The fact that there were minute details for my picture to point out proves that characterization was considered in the design of these princesses. Actually, having small differences proves that a lot of thought was put into it, instead of just changing the face shape and calling it good".

I honestly believe they used the same character design from Rapunzel for Anna, and only gave her slight differences out of laziness or simply because they sacrificed originality for the sake of selling points for the Frozen movie. They look and act a little too much a like for it to be a coincidence. It seems to me they were not made to look extremely different from one another, and they were probably inspired a little too much from Rapunzel's look and personality when doing Anna's character. Seriously, I would not be surprised if the animator said "I used the same model for Rapunzel that I used for Anna".
Characters during the Renaissance had many differences in both appearance and movement, even in regards to how they moved and danced. If you look at Esmeralda's facial structure, lips, and eye shape compared to someone like Pocahontas there is a lot of detail put into animating them differently and distinctly. And this is only to add to the distinct animation style they have from one another. And guess what? Those animators began drawing the 2D characters long before it was computerized. They used their own hands to capture the emotions of the characters. So I think it is amazing how talented and creative they were enough to give so much distinction and emotions to the characters. The Renaissance movies were not just a reflection of art, but a reflection of talent. Computer animation does not require talent; all it requires is knowledge and skill and so nothing feels like a personal touch of an artist. Anybody can make a computerized character in imitation with another....but hand drawn animation is difficult to imitate and copy. There will always be differences in the way one is drawn vs another. The amazing part was not just the movie itself, but also the talent of creating such wonderful masterpieces. CGI animation honestly is "cheating" giving creators the option to reuse the same character models over and over again without doing much work to make a brand new character model. All they have to do is use the same model and give a few differences, and they think that's it. But as you can see, people caught on when Anna's character design and personality was a little to similar to Rapunzel. Even Moana, the newest character they are releasing looks a lot like Merida with darker hair/skin and less clothing. Sure, it could be that they don't have the upgraded technology to do so...but I think even if they did the companies are only concerned about producing the next big thing rather than simply being creative.

As far as the story of Frozen, Elsa never truly rekindled her relationship with Anna. We can only assume that Elsa is gradually upset, but the movie never makes mention of this so its really only an assumption, not apart of the story development. Elsa's facial expressions may not be an indication of her evolutionary change, but rather an indication that she didn't want to be found. Of course, again we will never know because the movie does not give us anything clear to go on. She only truly discovers that love controls her powers until the end, and this is made CLEARLY evident by what she says and the results.
You stated: "Besides, Elsa's change had to slow down slightly while she hid in the castle. Anna needed a chance to develop." Yes, Elsa's story had to slow down to cater to Kristoff and Anna's relationship....but that is all the more reason why I felt the movie ended up being rather sloppy and the transitioning was way off.

You also stated: "It's a sister story because the ending is all about sisterly love, as was the inciting incident. All conflicts center around it. It doesn't call for 24/7 interaction." Actually, all conflicts surrounded Elsa's powers. Just because in the end randomly the sister act saves the day doesn't mean the movie itself is a sister story. The sister conflict felt like a "side issue" compared to the overall plot, and that is where it failed to be what it was promoted to be. True, 24/7 interaction was not needed, but some kind of interaction would have helped in a believable rekindled relationship, rather than a random act of protection then suddenly "I love my sister again even though we have been estranged for years and really never got a chance to talk to each other about anything". They honestly had no bond whatsoever with one another.

My claim was that the movie was focused on the development of the relationship, but the movie failed at doing what they were attempting to do. What was supposed to be a life altering experience became almost irrelevant to her character development. In other words, usually romance serves to help the character change and grow...but Kristoff did not serve his purpose. Anna ended up lacking EVOLUTION, meaning she had no evident change or anything. Like look at Tiana for example. Tiana changed as a result of her relationship with Naveen, and so did he. It is made obvious that Tiana went from being all about work to learning to find love in her life. Naveen went from being a spoiled prince to actually caring about someone other than himself. What exactly did Anna learn from her experiences with Kristoff? Honestly there was no evidence that she learned anything from being with him. It almost seemed like he was a friend aiding her, but he had no impact on her as a person other than that.
What actions led you to believe that she learned from her mistakes with Hans and that she discovered something about herself? Because her actions didn't quite prove that from what I see. Her actions only showed that she loved her sister and that when she loves someone she loves them strongly, willing to do anything for the a person she loves, even impulsively so (which is evident from the very beginning when she falls in love with Hans so quickly and is willing to marry him right there and also when she instantly chases after her sister into the blizzard).
Yet, in the end it is not as if her impulsive nature changes as a result of Hans betrayal. She seems to still remain the same girl she was.

And honestly, the movie does not do a good job of showing Anna is "capable" at doing anything. Kristoff is the one that got her everywhere safely. If it wasn't for him, she would be dead because she is rather impulsive throughout the movie, all the way until the end of the movie. You stated: " They hid their feelings at first because they hadn't learned yet how to interact." Kristoff did not hide his feelings to the VIEWERS, even if he did not show his feelings directly to Anna. The creators made it very evident that Kristoff had feelings for her. Not Anna. She gave no hints to the viewers that she actually had feelings for Kristoff. So, this kind of "love" honestly didn't change her as a character. It was just there. Just to say "Look we have a romance".
"We must remember that these are children movies. Kids love Olaf. I've worked with kids and done Frozen style activities with them- Olaf is always a favorite. Movies have to have development and appeal to adults, but they can't forget their target audience." That is another reason 90s movies were better. Producers were focused on making movies for entire "families" as the demographic. Family movies were popular in the 90s. Now the movies are ready made only for children, hence why the humor is silly and filled with butt jokes. Sure adults CAN enjoy it, but in the 90s movies were made for the entire family. And it is obvious because they were well structured and the characters well developed.
Mysery

Con

It was all 2D animation. The animation changed tone to fit each movie, but that happens in modern films, too. In animation, you can change the overall tone, or specific movements. I proved they don't change specific movements. I'll acknowledge that old movies change tones, but so do new ones. It's not just that Tangled is "lighter." The entire color scheme is warmer. The tone is different. The way things are placed on screen is different.

Even if Tangled and Frozen weren't different, why fix what isn't broken? Modern animation looks great, so Disney is going to keep doing something if it looks good.

Animation is getting more and more immersive. With 3D, even if you watch it in 2D, you can feel the world around you. It jumps out of your screen. On a modern flat screen TV, 2D animation gets hidden by the size of the screen. It doesn't make use of the technology we have. 3D animation opens the door to endless possibilities. Intricate actions can be shown in more realistic ways. Characters each have a unique gait because walking can take place in three dimensions. It's an experience. It's still art, and it's still creative. We can create clay models with our hands, too. 3D animation is like bringing models to life. A personal touch can be created in lots of different ways. The music is personal. The acting is personal. The minuscule details allowed by 3D animation are personal. It's easier imagine yourself in a three-dimensional world. I don't understand why 3D would capture imagination any less. Computers are very good. Anything you can dream, you can animate on a computer.

Big Hero 6 might have worked as a decent enough film, but 3D animation is what fully capture Baymax's texture and movement. He might seem real in 2D, but 3D allows him to move in the endearing ways that carry the film.

Who cares if they used the same model? I already proved that 2D animators recycle scenes. It makes sense that 3D animators would recycle faces. 2D artists do that too- there's a basic face every animator knows how to draw. Yes, they look similar, but people look similar in real life too. They have enough differences to be distinguishable, and these differences show character. That's the whole function of having different-looking characters in different films. It doesn't lower the quality of either film. It's actually a benefit- it allows people to make realistic fan theories. People like to say that Rapunzel and Anna are sisters, and that's more fun to believe if Rapunzel and Anna look similar.

It's kind of offensive to claim that "computer animation does not require talent." I dare you to go animate a film. You might be able to make the characters move, but it does take talent to make them move uniquely and realistically. How does your eyelid look when you're sad? How much does your hand shake when you're nervous. Where would you be looking? Would your eyes reflect anything? It's an art form, just like drawing. The only difference is the medium.

Anyway, we're not talking about difficulty. It's better if things are easier, so that they can focus on plot, or making more movies.

Elsa never disliked Anna. You can see her discomfort at hurting her. You can see decision making throughout. Maybe she didn't want to be found, either. You can analyze her yourself.

No, you didn't get to see everyone during every moment, but you didn't have to. The transitioning was set up so you can see the most important scene at any given moment. You can infer what's happening everywhere else. That's where the creativity you mentioned comes in. The movie makes you think creatively. It's designed a whole world, and it shows you the plot. Your mind is more than able to fill in the things that don't really matter.

Why are we so obsessed with "sister story?" People are calling it that because Elsa and Anna are the first Disney princesses to be sisters. The powers and their relationship are all wrapped up together. They absolutely had a bond together. Elsa's face when Anna is frozen proves that. So does "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" And the distress Elsa showed when she had to kick Anna out of the ice palace. Heck, Anna is driven to go on the whole journey because she feels close to Elsa. You even say, "Her actions only showed that she loved her sister."

It's completely untrue that Kristoff had no impact on Anna. Watch Anna interact with Hans at the beginning, than with Kristoff at the end. She learns what a real relationship is. With Hans, Anna acted the same with him the entire time they were falling in "love." You can tell Anna's learning by the fact that she treats Kristoff in different ways. At first, as a stranger. Then, a friend. Slowly, as an awkward crush, during the troll scene. Then, in a relationship. She's still not as intense as she was with Hans, though.

Anna is abosolutely capable. She saves Kristoff from wolves. She talks to Elsa, laying the building blocks for her to return. She makes it out to the trading post, which is an accomplishment, considering she's grown up completely indoors.

Why would Kristoff hide his feelings from the viewers? We should know that he has them. And Anna doesn't recognize her feelings for Kristoff at first. That's the whole point of her change. With Hans, the love was visible and instant. With Kristoff, it grows slowly, and you don't notice it until the end. If you watch it again, you can see it buildings.

College students liked Frozen at least as much as kids did. It deals with pretty adult themes, if you look for them. Elsa is a pretty accurate representation of depression, at times. And Let It Go can be a metaphor for sexual awakening. There's lots for adults. It makes more sense to include different things for different age groups, instead of trying to make every little thing appeal to every age. This way, adults get deep themes, and kids get Olaf. And Olaf isn't just for kids. I know adults who love him. You could call the target audience "Family" instead of "Children" if you want. It's kind of the same, considering adults often have to watch TV with the kids. Frozen absolutely appeals to all ages.
Debate Round No. 3
Soragirl7

Pro

Soragirl7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Soragirl7

Pro

I'm sorry, I didn't make it for the last round. I had a funeral to attend out of town. So I'll just continue with this point and hope for the best. lol
You stated: "Even if Tangled and Frozen weren't different, why fix what isn't broken? Modern animation looks great, so Disney is going to keep doing something if it looks good."

It will get old if Disney continues using the same look over and over again. It looks good, but lacks originality. Which means these movies will get tired years from now for something more "new". I think movies need something more than a great look. Any movie can look good. But very few can look "original".

"Animation is getting more and more immersive. With 3D, even if you watch it in 2D, you can feel the world around you. It jumps out of your screen. On a modern flat screen TV, 2D animation gets hidden by the size of the screen. It doesn't make use of the technology we have. 3D animation opens the door to endless possibilities. Intricate actions can be shown in more realistic ways. Characters each have a unique gait because walking can take place in three dimensions. It's an experience. It's still art, and it's still creative. We can create clay models with our hands, too. 3D animation is like bringing models to life. A personal touch can be created in lots of different ways. The music is personal. The acting is personal. The minuscule details allowed by 3D animation are personal. It's easier imagine yourself in a three-dimensional world. I don't understand why 3D would capture imagination any less. Computers are very good. Anything you can dream, you can animate on a computer."

While 3D looks cool, again it will get old behind the next big thing (4D, 5D, 6D, etc). The problem is these movies have nothing behind its animation except its realism. 3D makes it look more like our world rather than a world of its own. If I want to see a movie that looks realistic I'd just go see a live action movie. Live action movies have CGI, after all. What I like about animated movies is that they used to give something more than that; they were created to represent a world that we do not exist in. And it was the style of these movies that reflect the feeling of these new original worlds. 3D animation has no style. It only has revisions. This is why so many characters begin to all look alike. 3D animation is honestly limitedin comparison to 2D animation.

"2D artists do that too- there's a basic face every animator knows how to draw. Yes, they look similar, but people look similar in real life too. They have enough differences to be distinguishable, and these differences show character. That's the whole function of having different-looking characters in different films. It doesn't lower the quality of either film. It's actually a benefit- it allows people to make realistic fan theories. People like to say that Rapunzel and Anna are sisters, and that's more fun to believe if Rapunzel and Anna look similar."

It is way more difficult for 2D animations to have the same face. Most 2D animation is started by drawing the characters by hand first. You can't copy and past hand drawn pictures from another person. Even when we try to imitate someone else's handwriting, it will never be the same as the original. Drawn symbols are hard to make exactly the same even if we do them 100 times. On the computer, anyone can download software and take exact models for characters. With hand drawn characters that is much more difficult to do.
Maybe for people who like fanfiction its cool, but for me it feels lazy and it leaves me unimpressed and uninspired. I like to see originality and effort. Fanfiction gets old too.

"I dare you to go animate a film. You might be able to make the characters move, but it does take talent to make them move uniquely and realistically. How does your eyelid look when you're sad? How much does your hand shake when you're nervous. Where would you be looking? Would your eyes reflect anything? It's an art form, just like drawing. The only difference is the medium."
I actually I am in an animation class for my college course, and we are currently making an animated film called "Raining Fire". My classmates are currently making their's in 3D. I decided to make mine in 2D. What you are stating is not talent, it is skill. Anyone can learn how to make a character look sad with a computer with enough skill. The medium of the computer limits individuality because anyone can do it, even without talent. It was relatively easy for me to learn how to construct a character on the computer. I even have my own software at home from Bender that allows me to animate a character. It doesn't take much to do. All you need is skill, not talent. Talent and skill are too different things.
Hand drawn animation is not something a person can "learn" to do. Why? Because no matter what we learn to do, the way we draw will always be based on our own natural abilities. Professional Hand Drawn animation requires talent and can only be enhanced with more skills. But the talent of drawing is something that cannot be taught. Each drawing of a person will always be different from another. If you and I drew a picture of the same person right now, it would not look the same as one another, would it? Whereas I'm pretty sure if you made an animated character, if I use your exact format and software, my character will look exactly like yours. In fact, you could download your character, send me a copy, and I can just upload it as my own with a few revisions. Not hard to do.

"Anyway, we're not talking about difficulty. It's better if things are easier, so that they can focus on plot, or making more movies."
The animation gives the story a backdrop. It wouldn't be called an animated movie without the animation. The dificulty is not what I'm talking about. Its the individuality that I feel is lacking in 3D movies.

"Elsa never disliked Anna. You can see her discomfort at hurting her. You can see decision making throughout. Maybe she didn't want to be found, either. You can analyze her yourself."
I never said Elsa disliked Anna. I stated that they had grown distant from one another. The movie did not do a good job of rekindling their relationship.

"Your mind is more than able to fill in the things that don't really matter."
So we are expected to simply assume what happened in the movie? lol That doesn't give me much to go on. If I watch a movie I want to see what is going on. If I have to give my own spin on the story than I ought to be making the story myself instead of Disney.

"Why are we so obsessed with "sister story?" People are calling it that because Elsa and Anna are the first Disney princesses to be sisters. The powers and their relationship are all wrapped up together. They absolutely had a bond together. Elsa's face when Anna is frozen proves that. So does "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" And the distress Elsa showed when she had to kick Anna out of the ice palace. Heck, Anna is driven to go on the whole journey because she feels close to Elsa. You even say, Her actions only showed that she loved her sister."

I never said Anna didn't love her sister, rather the movie did not do a good job of rekindling their relationship after years of being apart. You can love a person deeply, but still struggle to grow close with them. I had hoped that the movie would actually show the two of them rekindling throughout the movie as they adventured together. But instead it was a failed attempt at trying to mix the original Snow Queen story with the story of Wicked. Just because they are sisters doesn't mean it is a sister story. Just because Jasmine and Sultan are daughter and father doesn't mean it is a father and daughter story. Brother Bear is a brother story because it focuses on two people who are like brothers. The entire movie is about them. Any sister plot in Frozen felt like a side dish compared to the main course. This is why the random act of sister love felt random to me. Because the movie hardly focused on the sisterly bond.

"Anna is abosolutely capable. She saves Kristoff from wolves. She talks to Elsa, laying the building blocks for her to return. She makes it out to the trading post, which is an accomplishment, considering she's grown up completely indoors."

Yet, the reason why Kristoff almost fell is because Anna recklessly decides to drive the wagon. She talks to Elsa, yes, but this isn't something she hasn't tried since the beginning. It is her sister. It doesn't require much. She didn't make it out to the trading post, she got lost and happened to have found the trading post. Most of the time Anna just go lucky. But her reckless behavior would have gotten her killed for the rest of the journey.

"And Anna doesn't recognize her feelings for Kristoff at first. That's the whole point of her change. With Hans, the love was visible and instant. With Kristoff, it grows slowly, and you don't notice it until the end. If you watch it again, you can see it buildings."
She didn't seem to change her feelings, rather it seems like she was never really into Kristoff to begin with. Her reason for taking it slow with Kristoff seemed to be because Kristoff was not originally someone she was drawn to. But it didn't seem to have anything to do with her changing. And again, this is not a strong evolution for someone who is supposed to be the "main character".
From what I see, adults like to attach Frozen to ideologies that fit with their world, but Frozen in itself only subtly gives us something to appeal to adults. The movies in the 90s addressed issues such as church and their corruption, Indigenieous take-over, the brutality of the Hans in China, the viciousness of kingship, and the division of animal and man. These are much deeper themes that adults can relate to. They were not subtle. These themes are not made up ones in our heads. They are blatant yet informative.
Mysery

Con

Sorry for your loss.

Maybe it will get old, but it isn't old yet. Besides, it's not the same look. Every animator is slightly different, and the movement and facial expressions vary in style from film to film.

"4D, 5D, 6D, etc." The fifth and sixth dimensions are parallel universes, so I highly doubt this is the route animation will take. Besides, if it did change in these ways, it would negate your point that the animation will get boring. There are no limits in computer animation. You can design anything, even if it's something you can't draw.

2D animators trace. A lot. Besides, any face you can draw, you can create on a computer.

Talent and skill are indeed two different things, but it doesn't matter which one a creator uses if the product is good. Really, it's better if it only requires skill so that we can have more animators. And I highly doubt everyone in your class got the same grade. Some of them are better than others. Besides, watch two films, and things will be different. You still incorporate your own experience with emotion. I'm glad you have skill; there's no reason to understate that. It's cool. And if you add something special, maybe this will be a talent, too.

The two sisters don't have to interact for the rekindling to realistic and flow naturally. Their thought processes are still evident.

You do see important happenings. You just don't see things that are boring and don't matter. Otherwise, the film would be five hours long.

I'll acknowledge that the movie has things more interesting than sisters. I don't see how that's something bad about the movie. It's still a great film.

Her actions at the beginning are mostly her solving her own problems, but that's more than she did before. And talking to a family member you're no longer close to is exceedingly difficult. That doesn't even consider the courage it took to go into a huge ice palace. Just walking through the cold for as long as she did is a feat, considering that Anna grew up indoors.

Anna wasn't into Kristoff at the beginning. That's the point. With Hans, it was love at first sight, and that ended badly. With Kristoff, she fell in love slowly, which was an accomplishment for her character.

Just because a theme isn't shoved down your throat doesn't mean it's "made up [in your head]". They're harder to see, but that means they are more deeply and naturally imbedded in the film. This also allows the themes to be more adult without distracting children.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Mysery 1 year ago
Mysery
Good debate. Sorry again for your loss. Hope things look up for you soon!
Posted by Circuity887 1 year ago
Circuity887
Isn't this completely opinion-based?

There's no viable proof for either side to use
Posted by Mysery 1 year ago
Mysery
@Soragirl7 Yes, sorry for the delay. I hate when people forfeit, and I promise I'll have it in.
Posted by Soragirl7 1 year ago
Soragirl7
@Mysery
Um...are you going to present your argument?
No votes have been placed for this debate.