Talk:Frozen (2013 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Frozen (2013 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 18, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

Category disputes[edit]

The following categories that were removed seemed perfectly valid:

Category:2010s romantic comedy films Category:American coming-of-age films Category:American computer-animated films Category:Animated adventure films Category:Animated comedy films Category:Animated fantasy films Category:Animated musical films Category:Dolby Atmos films Category:Films about orphans Category:Films about trolls Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters

Most of these were here previously, and some follow existing categories. Also Category:Buddy films seems just as valid to Frozen as it does to Beauty and the Beast or The Princess and the Frog. Kkjj (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think they're "perfectly valid"? Like Geraldo Perez said, most of them are WP:SUPERCAT. Also, regarding these edits: please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a comment wall where people can post their conjectures as they like. Please take time to read WP:CATDEF, and also WP:NOT. Cheers! -- ChamithN (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:Defining and WP:NOR I also removed some more genre categories that were not supported by definitions in the lead. We don't want editor's personal evaluation as to genre in articles - genres must be supported by reliable sources and that includes category contents. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
To emphasize as Kkjj and his obvious logged out IP 2602:306:83A9:3D00::/64 keeps adding back in ignoring the above. Categories are base on what is in the article and what is in the article for genres, and that includes genre categories, is what is supported by reliable sources, not the personal opinion of the person adding the categories. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close not moved (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Frozen (2013 film)Frozen (film)WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this is the most notable film known as Frozen. Be wary of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS as I'm assuming most of you aren't eight year olds or otherwise of the target demographic. Prisencolin (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose 5 other films with the name "Frozen", may be more in the future. Also Frozen (film) is still a title with a disambiguator so removing the 2013 really doesn't make adding this to articles any easier. A proper primary topic would one without any disambiguation and that would be Frozen if there were to be one and that, in my opinion, needs to be a disambiguation page. However, I do think, that a stronger argument could be made to move this article to Frozen as the primary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
(ec) A primary topic is the title without any disambiguation so the primary topic is Frozen if this film were to be considered primary and moved. Frozen (film) already redirects to Frozen § Film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments stated above. "Come on guys, you don't like Disney musicals?" (As a matter of fact, I do, but...) That sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. There's really no reason to remove just part of the disambiguation suffix. WP:NCF seems to advise against such moves and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT doesn't say anything about "primary topic redirects" for partial disambiguation. WP:IAR is not an excuse to do whatever you want. This article being at "Frozen (2013 film)" does not really reduce the quality of Wikipedia in any way. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCF. If this film was the primary topic, it would simply be at Frozen. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 18:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lugnuts. –Davey2010Talk 18:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Geraldo Perez. If there were other entities named Frozen but only this one film, I'd agree with it. As noted, there are multiple films already of that name, so shortening it to just Frozen (film) is still ambiguous. --McDoobAU93 18:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. An early close might be in order if anyone wants to build a snowman... There might be a case for moving this to Frozen, but that's not what this RM is about. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


So seeing how the RM went, it might be a better idea to just redirect Frozen (film) to this one as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The RFD is here.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close not moved. (non-admin closure)BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Frozen (2013 film)Frozen – "Frozen" topics (from the Frozen dab page) not related to the 2013 film have received 114,224 pageviews in the last 90 days (108,570 + 5,654). The total increases to 197,025 when 82,801 pageviews of Frozen (soundtrack) and Frozen (franchise), derivative topics of the 2013 film, are included. (Frozen Fever is not included as only a partial title match.)

Frozen (2013 film) received 487,933 views in the last 90 days – nearly 2.5 times as many views as all other 'Frozen' topics combined, and more than 4 times as many views as all 'Frozen' topics not related to the 2013 film. PTOPIC says, A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. This criterion is clearly met.

There is, of course, the more damning PTOPIC criterion of long-term significance, and if that outweighs Freezing enough for Frozen (2013 film) to be the primary topic of "Frozen". Obviously a natural physical condition will have more long-term significance than a piece of entertainment. But there is a clear difference between "freezing" and "frozen". I highly doubt most readers who search for "Frozen" are looking for the freezing article, especially since the freezing article only received 31,541 views in the last 90 days.

The final obstacle to the Disney movie being the primary topic for "Frozen" is if this RM is rooted too heavily in recentism. The film article remains highly popular as the film approaches its third anniversary. This is not a current box office monster. It's had some time to cool off. As the 9th biggest movie of all time (Disney's largest non-Marvel, non-Lucasfilm affair), this clearly has long-term significance and is not just a passing fad. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose the primary usage for the word frozen is the adjectival form of freeze, rather than some film. Pppery 23:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Do You Want to Build a Snowman?. Freezing is the long-term topic, the film is not, at least not now. When "frozen" refers mainly to Disney's Frozen and not to the action we can discuss the page-view significance. The best solution seems to be redirecting Frozen (film) here. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The article about freezing is located at freezing, not frozen. Frozen doesn't even point to the freezing article; it's currently a dab page. All the more reason the Disney film, which is an exact title match, should be primary. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • LOL this RM is worse than the previous one!, Has no chance as "Frozen film" and doesn't have a chance in hell as "Frozen" either, Might I suggest someone close this and it's a waste of the communities time (The nom did this in good faith no doubt about it but it's still a waste of time). –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure how much of a primary topic this is, but initiating a new RM only a day after a previous RM was closed as "not moved" feels rather soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd understand that point if the same title were being proposed. Chase (talk | contributions) 03:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose and WP:SNOW close. Because the previous nomination to a more disambiguated title was closed under WP:SNOW, this one has even less of a chance to be successful.  ONR  (talk)  10:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the primary topic of the term. The current setup allows for easy identification of incorrect incoming links, which the proposed page move would not support. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 12:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated above. Still way too soon to determine if the film's catchphrases ("Do you want to build a snowman?") will have a lasting effect on popular culture like The Dark Knight ("Not the hero we deserved, but the one that we needed") and Scarface ("Say hello to my little friend"). --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Film genre[edit]

Currently the film is described as a musical fantasy film in the intro. Musical is based on the significant article content that describes the music of the film and the major part that plays in the film and how it progresses the film narrative. Fantasy is the basic concept of having ice powers and how that drives the story. Those are major themes of the film and sufficiently and accurately describe the film. Nothing more is appropriate and anything more takes away from what the films major themes are.

I don't see any references or article content that describe the film as a comedy, there are comedic elements as in most light films but that does not make it a film where the main emphasis is on humor which is what comedy films do. Likewise there are dramatic elements of the film and action elements but that is not the emphasis of the film. Drama film or a action film are not descriptive of Frozen. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

final plot none of Hans Christian Andersen "The Snow Queen"[edit]

  • "The Snow Queen" (Danish: Snedronningen) is an original fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen (1805–1875). The tale was first published 21 December 1844 in New Fairy Tales. First Volume. Second Collection. 1845. (Danish: Nye Eventyr. Første Bind. Anden Samling. 1845.)[1]

The article details the very complex history of the evolution of the plot of FROZEN the movie. There does seem to be some original connection to the original Hans Christian Andersen story. But the final product has no connection to the plot of The Snow Queen! The article should clearly communicate this basic fact. It seems like the movie may be somewhat marketed as having more of a connection than it really does -- and the current article implicitly perpetuates this?- (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The article does say "inspired by ..." and not "based upon ...", the latter of which implies a more direct connection to the original work. How would you recommend mentioning this in the article? --McDoobAU93 19:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well -- that is a good question, and not at all an easy challenge! I would urge all those that want to work on this problem to start by reading the plot summary in the Snow Queen fairytale article -- and realize how totally unsuitable it would be for a modern Disney entertainment, and how different it is from the Disney movie that was ultimately made...

Now, compare that to our current FROZEN lede, telling casual readers right at the beginning "Inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Snow Queen",[5]"... Even though this is in an historic-technical sense true, it nonetheless leaves a casual reader with an incorrect impression that there would be some actual similarity between the plots.

It is so difficult to come up with an appropriate way to say in the lede that there is a connection in the way the movie was developed, yet no connection in the final plot -- that my best suggestion for now would be: mention of HAC/SQ should be totally dropped from the lede. In any event, certainly moved out of the first paragraph.

The accurate truth would be something like: Disney was intrigued by the original HAC/SQ fairytale from the mid-1800s, ever since the 1930s. A number of attempts were made to develop a movie starting in the late 1990s. A 2008 attempt faltered. The final effort in 2011 started with changing the title to FROZEN; by the end of plot development/changes in 2013 hardly any of the original SQ plot remained, just the general scandinavian setting.

But that sounds too detailed for the lede. And hard for us to agree on. Very difficult to come up with something simple to say that is not likely to be misleading.

They started with HAC/SQ, but changed it and changed it until almost none of the original plot was left. That seems to be the simple truth, but I don't know how to put it in that article, appropriately.- (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Quoting the end credits of the movie: “story inspired by ‘The Snow Queen’ by Hans Christian Andersen”. Many tales and stories adapted by Disney were treated more or less accurately, but independently of their degree of fidelity to the original plot, the source of inspiration has always been referenced as such. “Tangled” was inspired by the Brothers Grimm “Rapunzel”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” by Victor Hugo’s book, and, to take as an example a more drastic change, “The Lion King” is also loosely inspired by Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. In all of these cases, as in countless others, the story responsible of being the very first source of inspiration for the movie has always been credited, both in the movie credits and in its Wikipedia page. Why would this case be an exception?Ninahi8 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frozen (2013 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Mention of sequel (which for all we know has been quietly cancelled) in lead?[edit]

It was announced two years ago and one of the cast said last March that recording would begin that month? Recording for the first film began thirteen months before release, so if we assume a similar schedule either this statement was inaccurate or the film is coming out soon. But the confirmed sources are all so old that I'm kinda inclined to think the sequel has bee in development hell this whole time and isn't happening for the foreseeable future. If so, should we keep discussion of a sequel of dubious status out of the lead? (Note that I'm not saying anything about inclusion in the body, nor am I saying we should add any text to the article, so please don't accuse me of "original research" as happens every time I bring this kind of thing up.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It appears that she's walked back those comments as of last September, saying that she hasn't started recording yet. I think it's okay to leave it as it is, or add a small note mentioning that it's still in pre-production. MidnightObservation (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Concur. I think the current lead is fine. If you look at the development history of every Disney animated film (including Frozen), they all go through difficult periods where they spend months thrashing around in frustration trying to find a workable plot. You can tell in retrospect when those periods occurred because (1) the production team fell completely silent about their progress on the film and dropped off the radar for a long time, and (2) years later, after a successful release, they talk publicly about all the years of grueling work they had to go through. Notice how Disney is still making public noises every now and then about all the other stuff that they are working on: the Frozen Broadway musical, the cruise ship musical, the feature film version of A Wrinkle in Time (Jennifer Lee's pet project), Frozen Northern Lights, the untitled Christmas special, etc. The overall impression one gets (although we can't state this on Wikipedia because it's speculative) is that the company is trying to keep this media franchise alive and buy the production team time to figure out the sequel's plot. Look carefully at Jennifer Lee's comments at the end of this article from November 2016. Notice how she's referring to the project as if it's still active, but she's being careful to not say anything about how far they have actually gone with development (similar to Del Vecho and Buck's comments). --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Perceived LGBT parallels[edit]

I removed this from § Perceived LGBT parallels that used "Geal, Robert (June 1, 2016). "Frozen, Homosexuality and Masochism". Film International. Retrieved February 17, 2017. " as a reference because it appears to be a self published source and WP:FRINGE theory about stuff that the author perceives to be in the film where he argues the writers didn't handle it correctly. The section already describes the issue of some people seeing something and others basically saying was not the films intent. Basically starts by asserting as a given that Elsa is a homosexual character and argues from that. Expansion on one side of this issue is giving unnecessary undo weight to some minor issue in how people perceive the film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit does not relate to a self-published source, but is from a peer-reviewed academic journal. Film International is described by Wikipedia as "a bimonthly academic journal". Here is a link to the journal demonstrating the source:,id=3199/) It is therefore an established academic argument (although, like all arguments, partial). I have not found any other peer-reviewed academic articles addressing the issue of the film's homosexual subtext. The other comments about this subtext in this section are blog and filmmaker opinions, rather than academic analysis. My existing edit also does not establish Elsa's homosexuality as "a given", but positions the claims within the context of one academic source - "Geal argues..." I am happy to further foreground this partiality by altering "Elsa's female homosexuality" to "Elsa's potential female homosexuality" or "Geal claims that Elsa's female homosexuality" if that will clarify this. Some people might consider the homosexual subtext to be a fringe theory. However, this section already addresses this issue, but currently only from a non-academic position. Antonio Gramsci (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
This describes the journal. They state "We are committed to representing the author’s voice authentically, without imposition of our personal ideas or opinions." There is no peer review, it is just a place for people to publish their own original thought. WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". No indication that Robert Geal is an established expert who is well published or that Intellectbooks itself is a reliable source in of itself. Also to reiterate, the current section is well-balanced showing both sides of the controversy. Additional discussion and additional opinions adds nothing to what is already there and overweights one side of the controversy over the other. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The quoted section from the above "this" which describes the journal (actually the journal's publisher) makes no mention either way about peer-review, so I am not sure where that conclusion comes from. The publisher's "publish with us" page ( states that "All of our journals welcome unsolicited submissions of academic articles consistent with their aim and scope. Publication is subject to peer-review and needs to follow Intellect’s style guide." A PDF of the peer-review process is included on that page. There is much mention about how Intellect journals contribute to the REF - they are a respected academic publisher. The following quote about a self-published expert is therefore irrelevant. The current section is well-balanced, yes, in terms of both sides of the "argument". But the only published academic voice on this "argument" is currently not included. I suspect an ideological bias here - a concern that "one side" is overweighted, and a focus on "the author’s voice authentically, without imposition of our personal ideas or opinions" which had previously been described as a fringe theory, despite that theory being the subject matter of the subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talkcontribs) 22:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The current section is well-balanced and that addition gives excessive weight to an issue which is a minor issue in the article as a whole and currently covered sufficiently to get the main info across to the readers. Even accepting that the addition is peer reviewed in an academic journal the additional info, scholarly or not, is still just one more opinion on the issue and adds no value to this article. My personal ideological bias here is to keep the article neutral on issues of controversy and not give one side of the issue more weight than is warranted by the totality of reliable sources about the issue. The article is fine as it is in this subsection. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, I am new to editing on wikipedia, so I'm not sure what the next stage should be here. I believe that a third party is required, because I keep countering your rejections but you then add another. The fringe and self-published issues have been refuted. The problem, now, apparently, is that mention of the peer-reviewed discussion about this issue "adds no weight to this article" and that it "give[s] one side of the issue more weight than is warranted by the totality of reliable sources about the issue". I would refute both of these claims - Firstly, it does add weight, because it demonstrates that a controversy in the blogosphere is worthy of academic discussion, and that peer-reviewed academics consider that the controversy about LGBT issues in the film is not merely something of concern to interested and potentially irrational parties, but is also something worthy of approaching in a sober, considered academic manner. Media and film students, for example, may wish to address the issue in their assignments, and so adding a link to a credible academic discussion about the issue will be very valuable to them. Secondly, articulating and referencing different approaches to a controversy does not necessarily mean taking a particular side. The subsection is about an existing controversy, so that opinions about it are likely to be controversial, in one way or another. Wikipedia's neutrality is not hampered by explaining and referencing academic voices about a controversial matter, in fact I don't see how such a voice can threaten wikipedia's neutrality. I agree that the article is "fine", but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved. As I say, I think that our dialogue is unlikely to resolve this, so can you make a suggestion about how a third party might help? Antonio Gramsci (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you wish to continue this. My objection stands per what I stated. Additional discussion about something only slightly related to the movie Frozen as a whole is not an improvement to the article. A controversy exists, said controversy is adequately described with good sources references, no need to explore the details more than is already in the article as that is not what this Wikipedia article is about. There may be other appropriate articles on Wikipedia more suited to the content you wish to add, this article isn't it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will do that, as there seems to be a somewhat arbitrary nature about how it is decided that your "objection stands" - I take it that you have an objection, but it doesn't seem reasonable (or neutral, as you had it earlier) that you decide that it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talkcontribs) 20:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I explained why I don't think this belongs in the article. If you wish to include it gain consensus on this talk page to do so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've requested a WP:3O (I hope I've done it right) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talkcontribs) 21:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You may wish to look at LGBT themes in speculative fiction and see if it would add to that or related articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and Antonio Gramsci: I am going to try to resolve this conflict. The questions as I understand it:

  1. Is this a self-published source? There is no real evidence to clearly support that this is a self-published source. Film International despite their lack of a shiny Wikipedia article is a creditable publication with a editorial staff, publications in english going back to at least 2003, and in Swedish to 1973. Nonetheless, Robert Geal is a lecturer at an accredited university and previously published in 2 other even more credible publications. And the material is presented as opinion to boot.
  2. Is the treatment balanced or does adding this source put undue weight on one side? This is a much harder question. And Geraldo Perez makes a good point. I need more time to examine it. Bear with me.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. First, I must say this addition coming from a possible WP:SPA makes it very suspicious. Antonio Gramsci, this sort of insertion of controversial material from an editor with no edit history are going to be met with resistance. Perhaps, consider demonstrating good faith by making other contributions to Wikipedia in areas outside of this article. Geraldo Perez has shown good judgement in assuming good faith. With that said, I would have to agree that this material does warrant inclusion but requires some copy editing, scaling down and toning down. Here is my train of thought if your interested:

Extended content
  • This article is over 14000 words covering every little minutiae of this movie. It contains a lead with zero criticism and body with endless praise (deservedly IMO). It's critical response section has 3 paragraphs of high praise, 1 paragraph of luke warm review which ends in the only clearly negative review: "However, she referred to the film as "cynical" and criticized it as an "attempt to shake things up without shaking them up too much."
  • The paragraph immediately following that is not a criticism of the film but only of Lino DiSalvo's comment.
  • Now, the paragraph in question: first it defines two opposing arguments ("that Frozen promotes normalization of homosexuality" vs. that it "represents a positive image of LGBT youth"). It then gives Lee's defense which I interpret as defending the positive aspects and appropriately does nothing besides mention the other side as it is contrary to accepted "2013 point of view" as per WP:FALSEBALANCE
  • However, the same argument for exclusion cannot be made for Robert Geal's claims as he is essentially the WP:BESTSOURCE on the matter as the only academic to have studied the matter and his argument seem completely separate. But without access, I cannot judge that. But it at least deserves mention.

The original inserted text is unacceptable in tone and length. No one with a few publications should be referred to as "scholar" on Wikipedia as far a I know, see WP:PEACOCK. That lends them undue authority. It also has too much detail. I instead propose the following compromise:

Robert Geal has argued that while the film represents homosexuality in an ostensibly non-discriminatory manner, it undermines this potential through a range of cultural prejudices that reinforce conservative notions about sexuality and gender; whereas Elsa's female homosexuality is rendered visually pleasurable to a male gaze, male transgressions of heterosexuality are coded in various negative ways.

That is all a newly published work deserves. Perhaps with time other review of the literature will reveal more detail on the matter.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: Thank you for your investigation and evaluation of the issue. I still disagree about inclusion of this information. A part of the problem is that this film is generally seen by most people and also the writers to not be about homosexuality at all in any way, it is a story about love between two sisters and not in an incestuous way. Some small percent of the audience, because of seeing no love interest for the main character, presume because of that that the character, Elsa, is gay. It is widely acknowledged that the film does have thematic elements that resonate with various marginalized people including gay people among others and that has led to people, as described in the controversy section to see gay elements in the film, some positive and some negative. Geal is just another person who sees homosexuality represented when that is not what the film is about and then goes on to criticize the portrayal as basically not being done correctly based on current cultural norms. Geal is no more reliable or insightful than any other critic about his opinions and he is basically going off on a tangent that basically adds no real value to the controversy section. Female homosexuality is not shown in this film so any statement presuming that it is and then expanding on that really has nothing to do with this film. The assertion that Elsa is gay, taken as a given by Geal and the basis of his analysis, is basically a WP:FRINGE view of the character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Geraldo Perez, I am not unconvinced by your argument. Can you site sources for "this film is generally seen by most people and also the writers to not be about homosexuality at all in any way." If so, clear evidence of that is likely to convince me to change my opinion as Geal's singularity is suspicious. However, the idea of homosexual parallels is prevalent in popular culture and ignoring it without clear treatment is a disservice to NPOV. I have not seen the movie, which gives me a rare and unique unbiased opinion. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has interesting incites: Talk:Frozen_(2013_film)/Archive_2. It explains how the section was originally created.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64: That archived discussion covers the background. As for referenced support of my generalization statement, the entirety of the whole article as it is now, statements by the writers and actors and the reviews by critics. Sisterhood is the key theme and driver for the movie. § Writing goes into that a fair amount with good references to support that. No mention of gay themes at all in the film creation. § Casting also covers the sister theme from the cast perspective. § Critical response shows no major critics see any gay themes. Gay themes are a perception of some of the audience as covered in § Perceived LGBT parallels which reflect the compromise from the archived discussion. Even there most of the references see Elsa as a metaphor but not a gay character directly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The archived discussion is interesting, particularly in the sense that part of the argument is about the legitimacy of the claimants. A peer-reviewed academic voice could therefore contribute towards legitimacy. The main issue, here, tough, is about thinking how film operates, in an ontological manner, especially from an academic perspective. Feminist film theory, psychoanalytic film theory and queer theory (see wikipedia pages), each of which inform Geal's argument, is not especially concerned with whether there is a "mention of x themes [...] in the film creation". These approaches conceptualize film making as partly unconscious activity, in which filmmakers encode various internalized biases into their work. The repeat mention of the male gaze, above, devised by Mulvey, is an example of this - a director does not consciously think that female characters should be punished for the way that she is objectified by the camera. Instead, the director in that example is motivated by unconscious castration anxiety. This is all very controversial and subject of much debate in academic circles. Geraldo Perez no doubt does not think that film operates in this way. But many film theorists do, and Geal's paper is an example of this kind of academic thinking, applied to the film in question here.

Antonio Gramsci (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and (Janweh64) and Geraldo Perez I forgot to add that I am happy with the compromise that Janwej64 has suggested. I will endeavor to make some other edits here and there as and when time allows. I have been teaching on homosexual themes in Frozen, and thought it would be useful to add mention of the only academic account of the issue that I have been able to findAntonio Gramsci (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Antonio Gramsci:, can you quote some of the relevant parts of Geal here. It would be nice to make sure he is not some crazy nut. Just very short excerpts.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64:Here are the first couple of paragraphs: Disney’s animated phenomenon Frozen has been criticized by America’s religious right for its homosexual subtext which allegedly advocates non-Christian values to impressionable audiences. This paper does not dispute the presence of such a subtext, but argues that the film’s gay codings, rather than celebrating and encouraging homosexuality, invoke bigoted stereotypes, negative psychoanalytic categories and masochistic cinematic conventions. The film represents homosexuality in an ostensibly non-discriminatory manner, but undermines this potential through a range of cultural prejudices and conventionalized conservative cinematic techniques. The last of these elements entails the film’s most sinister approach to homosexuality, reflexively linking a masochistic representation of its gay-coded characters with the ideological passivity of cinematic spectatorship.

Frozen celebrates masochism both narratively and visually, joyously singing about the disavowed sexualities of, and threats to, its characters whilst simultaneously thematising realist cinema’s central ontological ideological project, inscribing spectators into “the pleasure of […] movement and fixity and movement again, from fragment […] to totality (the jubilation of the final image)” (Heath 514) by narrativising the principle that the “drama of vision becomes a constant reflexive fascination in films” (514). As Kristoff says, when he first hears Olaf the snowman’s joyous fantasy about the summer that will kill him, “somebody’s gotta tell him”. The same is true with cinema – somebody (the filmmakers) has/have to reveal the medium’s masochism, and indeed has/have to inscribe this revelation into the pleasure of unpleasure and the subsequent cathartic resolution of that revelation’s threat. So, just as Olaf is able to survive and enjoy his unpleasure, so too is the cinematic spectator. Both stage and enjoy the masochistic dramas of vision and of narrative.

Heath, S. (1985) ‘Jaws’, ideology and film theory in Nichols, B. (ed.) Movies and methods volume II. London: University of California Press, pp.509-514.Antonio Gramsci (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: and @Geraldo Perez: Any progress on this? Are we in limbo here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio Gramsci (talkcontribs)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Antonio Gramsci: {{re}} only works if you use it with ~~~~ at the same time. Geraldo Perez and I did not know you left a message because you did not sign it.

As it stands now, your addition would be considered very close to plagiarism and copyright violations. First propose a version that is not a policy violation and we can discuss.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Janweh64: and @Geraldo Perez: Yes, apologies, I keep forgetting to add that signature. I would be happy with a compromise along the lines you suggested, Janweh64, something like

Robert Geal has argued that while the film offers an ostensibly progressive vision of homosexuality, it perpetuates conservative notions about sexuality and gender; whereas Elsa's female homosexuality is rendered visually pleasurable to a male gaze, male transgressions of heterosexuality are coded in various negative ways.

I take your point about the term "film scholar", can you suggest a more neutral term that would demonstrate that this is an academic claim without the need to look up the source? Antonio Gramsci (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Writing for Film International, Robert Geal.... .
Are you sure nothing else is copied? Anything copied needs to be in quotes. And find a different word for ostensibly, word choice is artistic expression and therefore protected by copyright.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64: and @Geraldo Perez:Nothing else copied, I suggest superficially instead of ostensibly, so

Writing for Film International, Robert Geal has argued that while the film offers a superficially progressive vision of homosexuality, it perpetuates conservative notions about sexuality and gender; whereas Elsa's female homosexuality is rendered visually pleasurable to a male gaze, male transgressions of heterosexuality are coded in various negative ways.

Antonio Gramsci (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Antonio Gramsci: Go for it. The page has pending changes protection any now. So no reason not to.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64:OK, will do, thanks Antonio Gramsci (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)