FANDOM


  • This question is related to this discussion: http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:367278

    Is Frozen the greatest animated movie ever made?
     
    18
     
    34
     
    2
     

    The poll was created at 14:57 on May 12, 2014, and so far 54 people voted.
      Loading editor
    • No more activity here?

        Loading editor
    • Lion King > Frozen. Better soundtrack. Better villain. Better villain song. Better message.

        Loading editor
    • MuppetsMostWanted wrote:
      Lion King > Frozen. Better soundtrack. Better villain. Better villain song. Better message.

      Huh?

        Loading editor
    • one of the best rather!, alongside The Lion King and Tarzan!

        Loading editor
    • Totally!

        Loading editor
    • Personally my favourite is Tangled but Frozen is definitely up there along with Beauty and The Beast and The Lion King.

        Loading editor
    • Activity?

        Loading editor
    • Sorry, but it's not. That title belongs to Mr. Peabody & Sherman. 

        Loading editor
    • I disagree. For me, Toy Story comes closer to such a distinction.

        Loading editor
    • I love the Toy Story film series, but honesty I like Mr. Peabody & Sherman more. 

        Loading editor
    • I feel Fantasia has that distinction. It has some of the most artistic, surreal, beautiful, and darkest elements of any animated film. It also has fantastic hand-drawn animation and an excellent selection of classical music. Fantasia's the absolute apex of what Disney animation could achieve. 

        Loading editor
    • At least THIS isn't as exaggerating as calling the best film ever made. As for animated film, I'm not sure. There are so many great animated films. 

        Loading editor
    • I was expecting more activity here.

        Loading editor
    • Activity?

        Loading editor
    • Pinocchio is the greatest animated film of all time. It is considered by MANY professional critics and animation experts to be the most technically perfect animated film of all time. There's a reason it's the only Disney film (and one of the only animated films) to get 100% at Rotten Tomatoes.

      The Prince of Egypt is also better. It presents a kids' film through a very serious tone, with tons of effort and genuine love put into the story and the animation, with legitimate respect to the source material.

      Beauty and the Beast. It had a better subversion of the handsome "nice guy" turning out to be the villain because there was FORESHADOWING. Something that Frozen severely lacked. The female lead is also far better, because of her chara

      The Hunchback of Notre Dame. STUNNING visuals. AMAZING character development. WONDERFUL songs. It definitely took the most risks that payed off from any animated film.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Focusing more on the emotions than on trying to be a statement. Yeah, Snow White isn't exactly the most complex character Disney's made, but she was supposed to be the "clean slate" on whom little girls can base morals.

      Toy Story 2. Just... just watch it... it's amazing.

      Tarzan. The visuals are gorgeous. The character development through which Tarzan goes is some of the greatest I've ever seen.

      Peter Pan. Definitely one of the shining examples of having more than one moral done amazingly well. Having Peter, Wendy and George all learning different lessons, but linked, all getting rounded character arcs and all having a happy ending. You have Peter who doesn't want to grow up, but learns it's okay if others do. Then there's Wendy who doesn't want to grow up, but eventually realises it's time to. And then there's George, who starts off wanting all children to grow up, but learns that it's okay to have a bit of that inner child feeling in you.

        Loading editor
    • ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      Pinocchio is the greatest animated film of all time. It is considered by MANY professional critics and animation experts to be the most technically perfect animated film of all time. There's a reason it's the only Disney film (and one of the only animated films) to get 100% at Rotten Tomatoes.

      The Prince of Egypt is also better. It presents a kids' film through a very serious tone, with tons of effort and genuine love put into the story and the animation, with legitimate respect to the source material.

      Beauty and the Beast. It had a better subversion of the handsome "nice guy" turning out to be the villain because there was FORESHADOWING. Something that Frozen severely lacked. The female lead is also far better, because of her chara

      The Hunchback of Notre Dame. STUNNING visuals. AMAZING character development. WONDERFUL songs. It definitely took the most risks that payed off from any animated film.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Focusing more on the emotions than on trying to be a statement. Yeah, Snow White isn't exactly the most complex character Disney's made, but she was supposed to be the "clean slate" on whom little girls can base morals.

      Toy Story 2. Just... just watch it... it's amazing.

      Tarzan. The visuals are gorgeous. The character development through which Tarzan goes is some of the greatest I've ever seen.

      Peter Pan. Definitely one of the shining examples of having more than one moral done amazingly well. Having Peter, Wendy and George all learning different lessons, but linked, all getting rounded character arcs and all having a happy ending. You have Peter who doesn't want to grow up, but learns it's okay if others do. Then there's Wendy who doesn't want to grow up, but eventually realises it's time to. And then there's George, who starts off wanting all children to grow up, but learns that it's okay to have a bit of that inner child feeling in you.

      First, I'm going to start off by saying that you are entitled to your own opinion and I respect that. However, you're acting ridiculous, and you're acting as if other people decide which film you're supposed to like.

      Second, let me provide a response to the remainder of your reply.

      Pinocchio is a good old classic, but "the greatest animated film of all time"? That's an overstatement, if you ask me. You do realize the film is rated 100% because the rating is based upon merely 41 reviews (compare to Frozen's 89% and 189 reviews) which all happened to be very positive. There's definetely a reason why it recieved 100%, but it's surely and certainly not because of the "reason" that you're implying. May I remind you again that film is subjective and there are people out there who do not like Pinocchio? My point is that it's wrong to use rating sites to support your stance as they are all a random (though often times small) number of different opinions displayed on one site. Let me provide you with a more proper and valid statement; there's a reason why people talk of a "Frozen-phenomenon" today. No need to say more. 

      The Prince of Egypt is even better than Pinocchio, according to me.

      In Beauty and the Beast, Gaston wasn't the equivalent to Hans in any way. Gaston was niether acting as a "nice guy" or fooling anybody. Hans was a brilliant character because he genuinly acted like a nice guy and in the end had us all shocked because of him being a villain. I'm taking a wild guess and say you're one of those who missed all the subtle hints towards Hans' true colors. Making it much more obvious (Gaston-obvious) that he was the villain would not have been in the film's favour. It must also be noted, Belle is nice and all, but Anna and Elsa were considerably better as female leads due to their touching story, their tragic history, their lovable and charming characters, and how they are so relatable to a great amount of people over the world.

      The Hunchback of Notre Dame, great film! One of Disney's best! Although, that's what I thought about all of the great renaissance films that I grew up with. However, Frozen is (you know what I'm gonna say) greater.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, is another good old classic that is just as good as Pinocchio. However, greater than Frozen? That's another overstatement. None of these films can be compared to, or live up to, the quality and success (aswell as my personal experience) of the cinematic masterpiece that is Frozen.

      Regarding Toy Story 2. I'm gonna go on and say Toy Story 3 is undoubtedly the best in the entire Toy Story-franchise and a great ending of a childhood classic (at least it was before Toy Story 4 was announced, which makes me worried...)!

      Tarzan is another of Disney's greatest classics from the renaissance (even being directed by Chris Buck, co-director of you-know-which-film-I'm-refering-to)! However, you already know what I'm gonna say by now.

      The same goes for Peter Pan as with previous films I've mentioned.

      All great films, and there is something called "the greatest films of all time" (plural), and all of the above films fall into this category. But then we also have a subcategory, "the greatest film of all time", which can only be attributed to one single film, and I currently believe Frozen was destined to become that film. It's a film with a worldwide success and impact unlike, and more unexpected than, any other film. It's unique, and it stands out in the crowd, it's a film that everybody should know about.

        Loading editor
    • Varg2000 wrote:

      ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      Pinocchio is the greatest animated film of all time. It is considered by MANY professional critics and animation experts to be the most technically perfect animated film of all time. There's a reason it's the only Disney film (and one of the only animated films) to get 100% at Rotten Tomatoes.

      The Prince of Egypt is also better. It presents a kids' film through a very serious tone, with tons of effort and genuine love put into the story and the animation, with legitimate respect to the source material.

      Beauty and the Beast. It had a better subversion of the handsome "nice guy" turning out to be the villain because there was FORESHADOWING. Something that Frozen severely lacked. The female lead is also far better, because of her chara

      The Hunchback of Notre Dame. STUNNING visuals. AMAZING character development. WONDERFUL songs. It definitely took the most risks that payed off from any animated film.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Focusing more on the emotions than on trying to be a statement. Yeah, Snow White isn't exactly the most complex character Disney's made, but she was supposed to be the "clean slate" on whom little girls can base morals.

      Toy Story 2. Just... just watch it... it's amazing.

      Tarzan. The visuals are gorgeous. The character development through which Tarzan goes is some of the greatest I've ever seen.

      Peter Pan. Definitely one of the shining examples of having more than one moral done amazingly well. Having Peter, Wendy and George all learning different lessons, but linked, all getting rounded character arcs and all having a happy ending. You have Peter who doesn't want to grow up, but learns it's okay if others do. Then there's Wendy who doesn't want to grow up, but eventually realises it's time to. And then there's George, who starts off wanting all children to grow up, but learns that it's okay to have a bit of that inner child feeling in you.

      First, I'm going to start off by saying that you are entitled to your own opinion and I respect that. However, you're acting ridiculous, and you're acting as if other people decide which film you're supposed to like.

      Second, let me provide a response to the remainder of your reply.

      Pinocchio is a good old classic, but "the greatest animated film of all time"? That's an overstatement, if you ask me. You do realize the film is rated 100% because the rating is based upon merely 41 reviews (compare to Frozen's 89% and 189 reviews) which all happened to be very positive. There's definetely a reason why it recieved 100%, but it's surely and certainly not because of the "reason" that you're implying. May I remind you again that film is subjective and there are people out there who do not like Pinocchio? My point is that it's wrong to use rating sites to support your stance as they are all a random (though often times small) number of different opinions displayed on one site. Let me provide you with a more proper and valid statement; there's a reason why people talk of a "Frozen-phenomenon" today. No need to say more. 

      The Prince of Egypt is even better than Pinocchio, according to me.

      In Beauty and the Beast, Gaston wasn't the equivalent to Hans in any way. Gaston was niether acting as a "nice guy" or fooling anybody. Hans was a brilliant character because he genuinly acted like a nice guy and in the end had us all shocked because of him being a villain. I'm taking a wild guess and say you're one of those who missed all the subtle hints towards Hans' true colors. Making it much more obvious (Gaston-obvious) that he was the villain would not have been in the film's favour. It must also be noted, Belle is nice and all, but Anna and Elsa were considerably better as female leads due to their touching story, their tragic history, their lovable and charming characters, and how they are so relatable to a great amount of people over the world.

      The Hunchback of Notre Dame, great film! One of Disney's best! Although, that's what I thought about all of the great renaissance films that I grew up with. However, Frozen is (you know what I'm gonna say) greater.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, is another good old classic that is just as good as Pinocchio. However, greater than Frozen? That's another overstatement. None of these films can be compared to, or live up to, the quality and success (aswell as my personal experience) of the cinematic masterpiece that is Frozen.

      Regarding Toy Story 2. I'm gonna go on and say Toy Story 3 is undoubtedly the best in the entire Toy Story-franchise and a great ending of a childhood classic (at least it was before Toy Story 4 was announced, which makes me worried...)!

      Tarzan is another of Disney's greatest classics from the renaissance (even being directed by Chris Buck, co-director of you-know-which-film-I'm-refering-to)! However, you already know what I'm gonna say by now.

      The same goes for Peter Pan as with previous films I've mentioned.

      All great films, and there is something called "the greatest films of all time" (plural), and all of the above films fall into this category. But then we also have a subcategory, "the greatest film of all time", which can only be attributed to one single film, and I currently believe Frozen was destined to become that film. It's a film with a worldwide success and impact unlike, and more unexpected than, any other film. It's unique, and it stands out in the crowd, it's a film that everybody should know about.

      Regarding the list:

      For Pinnochio, I largely agree, and in fact, film being "subjective" is precisely the reason why I don't hold to meaningless titles like "greatest films of all time" or "greatest film of all time." What's the point of even holding that title when it will be revoked at a future date anyways?

      I can't comment on Prince of Egypt as I've never seen it, and thus can't form any statement on it.

      I definitely agree with you regarding Gaston and Belle. In fact, the blatantness of his villainy (especially the reprise, which basically threw all believability and realism out of the window. I mean, honestly, when Stalin's crimes were exposed in that Secret Speech, that resulted in huge riots and everyone turning against him post-mortem, meaning Stalin couldn't even afford to expose that kind of detailed list of crimes while he was alive, so how on earth can Gaston, most popular guy in the village or not, town hero or not, get away with blatantly admitting enough details about his plot for everyone in-universe and the audience to deduce just what he was planning, not to mention how much of a total scumbag the guy really was) was actually one of the film's biggest detriments if you ask me. Another flaw was the decision to make Belle a feminist crusader, and basically butchering her internal beauty role in the process (for goodness sakes, those blonde triplets had more indications of internal beauty than Belle did just from subtle hints that most likely weren't even intended, and those were her foils and they crushed on Gaston), including stupidly exposing the Beast to a mob, thus nearly making her an accessory to mass murder. Even worse that this was all Katzenberg's idea and originally the film was going to be much closer to the original tale, including making Belle a pure angel and actually giving her a foil to highlight how Belle was internally beautiful, if not externally beautiful.

      As far as Hunchback of Notre Dame, it was pretty good, although I felt they didn't make Claude Frollo evil enough (to be honest, they really should have made him more like Phillipe Augustine from Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem to actually get him to the pure evil they envisioned him as), not to mention having Hugo have the hots for Djali, a male goat, is not exactly good (in fact, that's actually blasphemy to have one of the Notre Dame's gargoyles basically engaging in homosexual behavior, especially when it's supposed to be God's house and God made explicit that homosexuality was an abomination in the Book of Leviticus). Oh, and making Phoebus into what effectively amounts to General Leo from Final Fantasy VI was also a huge mistake especially when in the book, he made even Gaston seem like an extremely nice, decent guy who actually cared for women's well-being by comparison.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did manage to not only highlight internal beauty vs. internal ugliness, but even showed the dangers of actually dismissing someone's hideous appearance especially when said someone turns out to be just as ugly on the inside as on the outside, so it arguably actually did a far better job than Frozen did.

      Hard to say about Toy Story 2. To be honest, they really didn't have a sequel hook in that film's ending, unlike the first film, so technically, Toy Story 3 wasn't even that necessary, not to mention Toy Story 4 certainly wasn't necessary at all.

      Tarzan, well, I honestly felt they actually did have a better job actually doing a surprise villain there, especially when they do at least try to paint Clayton in a reasonably positive manner, and only kept subtle clues like his sinisterly checking off a list at one point towards his true role, while with Hans from what I could gather didn't exactly even have subtle clues, just having it come from nowhere (then again, I haven't actually watched the film yet, though my mom has).

      And Peter Pan, well, pretty good movie overall.

      My idea of "greatest film of all time", heck, "greatest anything of all time", is one that literally cannot be revoked once assigned, and when it's revoked easily, it cannot qualify. That's why I hold such titles to be meaningless.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Varg2000 wrote:



      ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      Pinocchio is the greatest animated film of all time. It is considered by MANY professional critics and animation experts to be the most technically perfect animated film of all time. There's a reason it's the only Disney film (and one of the only animated films) to get 100% at Rotten Tomatoes.

      The Prince of Egypt is also better. It presents a kids' film through a very serious tone, with tons of effort and genuine love put into the story and the animation, with legitimate respect to the source material.

      Beauty and the Beast. It had a better subversion of the handsome "nice guy" turning out to be the villain because there was FORESHADOWING. Something that Frozen severely lacked. The female lead is also far better, because of her chara

      The Hunchback of Notre Dame. STUNNING visuals. AMAZING character development. WONDERFUL songs. It definitely took the most risks that payed off from any animated film.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Focusing more on the emotions than on trying to be a statement. Yeah, Snow White isn't exactly the most complex character Disney's made, but she was supposed to be the "clean slate" on whom little girls can base morals.

      Toy Story 2. Just... just watch it... it's amazing.

      Tarzan. The visuals are gorgeous. The character development through which Tarzan goes is some of the greatest I've ever seen.

      Peter Pan. Definitely one of the shining examples of having more than one moral done amazingly well. Having Peter, Wendy and George all learning different lessons, but linked, all getting rounded character arcs and all having a happy ending. You have Peter who doesn't want to grow up, but learns it's okay if others do. Then there's Wendy who doesn't want to grow up, but eventually realises it's time to. And then there's George, who starts off wanting all children to grow up, but learns that it's okay to have a bit of that inner child feeling in you.

      First, I'm going to start off by saying that you are entitled to your own opinion and I respect that. However, you're acting ridiculous, and you're acting as if other people decide which film you're supposed to like.

      Second, let me provide a response to the remainder of your reply.

      Pinocchio is a good old classic, but "the greatest animated film of all time"? That's an overstatement, if you ask me. You do realize the film is rated 100% because the rating is based upon merely 41 reviews (compare to Frozen's 89% and 189 reviews) which all happened to be very positive. There's definetely a reason why it recieved 100%, but it's surely and certainly not because of the "reason" that you're implying. May I remind you again that film is subjective and there are people out there who do not like Pinocchio? My point is that it's wrong to use rating sites to support your stance as they are all a random (though often times small) number of different opinions displayed on one site. Let me provide you with a more proper and valid statement; there's a reason why people talk of a "Frozen-phenomenon" today. No need to say more. 

      The Prince of Egypt is even better than Pinocchio, according to me.

      In Beauty and the Beast, Gaston wasn't the equivalent to Hans in any way. Gaston was niether acting as a "nice guy" or fooling anybody. Hans was a brilliant character because he genuinly acted like a nice guy and in the end had us all shocked because of him being a villain. I'm taking a wild guess and say you're one of those who missed all the subtle hints towards Hans' true colors. Making it much more obvious (Gaston-obvious) that he was the villain would not have been in the film's favour. It must also be noted, Belle is nice and all, but Anna and Elsa were considerably better as female leads due to their touching story, their tragic history, their lovable and charming characters, and how they are so relatable to a great amount of people over the world.

      The Hunchback of Notre Dame, great film! One of Disney's best! Although, that's what I thought about all of the great renaissance films that I grew up with. However, Frozen is (you know what I'm gonna say) greater.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, is another good old classic that is just as good as Pinocchio. However, greater than Frozen? That's another overstatement. None of these films can be compared to, or live up to, the quality and success (aswell as my personal experience) of the cinematic masterpiece that is Frozen.

      Regarding Toy Story 2. I'm gonna go on and say Toy Story 3 is undoubtedly the best in the entire Toy Story-franchise and a great ending of a childhood classic (at least it was before Toy Story 4 was announced, which makes me worried...)!

      Tarzan is another of Disney's greatest classics from the renaissance (even being directed by Chris Buck, co-director of you-know-which-film-I'm-refering-to)! However, you already know what I'm gonna say by now.

      The same goes for Peter Pan as with previous films I've mentioned.

      All great films, and there is something called "the greatest films of all time" (plural), and all of the above films fall into this category. But then we also have a subcategory, "the greatest film of all time", which can only be attributed to one single film, and I currently believe Frozen was destined to become that film. It's a film with a worldwide success and impact unlike, and more unexpected than, any other film. It's unique, and it stands out in the crowd, it's a film that everybody should know about.

      Regarding the list:

      For Pinnochio, I largely agree, and in fact, film being "subjective" is precisely the reason why I don't hold to meaningless titles like "greatest films of all time" or "greatest film of all time." What's the point of even holding that title when it will be revoked at a future date anyways?

      I can't comment on Prince of Egypt as I've never seen it, and thus can't form any statement on it.

      I definitely agree with you regarding Gaston and Belle. In fact, the blatantness of his villainy (especially the reprise, which basically threw all believability and realism out of the window. I mean, honestly, when Stalin's crimes were exposed in that Secret Speech, that resulted in huge riots and everyone turning against him post-mortem, meaning Stalin couldn't even afford to expose that kind of detailed list of crimes while he was alive, so how on earth can Gaston, most popular guy in the village or not, town hero or not, get away with blatantly admitting enough details about his plot for everyone in-universe and the audience to deduce just what he was planning, not to mention how much of a total scumbag the guy really was) was actually one of the film's biggest detriments if you ask me. Another flaw was the decision to make Belle a feminist crusader, and basically butchering her internal beauty role in the process (for goodness sakes, those blonde triplets had more indications of internal beauty than Belle did just from subtle hints that most likely weren't even intended, and those were her foils and they crushed on Gaston), including stupidly exposing the Beast to a mob, thus nearly making her an accessory to mass murder. Even worse that this was all Katzenberg's idea and originally the film was going to be much closer to the original tale, including making Belle a pure angel and actually giving her a foil to highlight how Belle was internally beautiful, if not externally beautiful.

      As far as Hunchback of Notre Dame, it was pretty good, although I felt they didn't make Claude Frollo evil enough (to be honest, they really should have made him more like Phillipe Augustine from Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem to actually get him to the pure evil they envisioned him as), not to mention having Hugo have the hots for Djali, a male goat, is not exactly good (in fact, that's actually blasphemy to have one of the Notre Dame's gargoyles basically engaging in homosexual behavior, especially when it's supposed to be God's house and God made explicit that homosexuality was an abomination in the Book of Leviticus). Oh, and making Phoebus into what effectively amounts to General Leo from Final Fantasy VI was also a huge mistake especially when in the book, he made even Gaston seem like an extremely nice, decent guy who actually cared for women's well-being by comparison.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did manage to not only highlight internal beauty vs. internal ugliness, but even showed the dangers of actually dismissing someone's hideous appearance especially when said someone turns out to be just as ugly on the inside as on the outside, so it arguably actually did a far better job than Frozen did.

      Hard to say about Toy Story 2. To be honest, they really didn't have a sequel hook in that film's ending, unlike the first film, so technically, Toy Story 3 wasn't even that necessary, not to mention Toy Story 4 certainly wasn't necessary at all.

      Tarzan, well, I honestly felt they actually did have a better job actually doing a surprise villain there, especially when they do at least try to paint Clayton in a reasonably positive manner, and only kept subtle clues like his sinisterly checking off a list at one point towards his true role, while with Hans from what I could gather didn't exactly even have subtle clues, just having it come from nowhere (then again, I haven't actually watched the film yet, though my mom has).

      And Peter Pan, well, pretty good movie overall.

      My idea of "greatest film of all time", heck, "greatest anything of all time", is one that literally cannot be revoked once assigned, and when it's revoked easily, it cannot qualify. That's why I hold such titles to be meaningless.

      Well, first of all, one would have to explain what the title means and how it is used. I use the title of "the greatest film of all time" to describe a work of cinematic art that is unlike anything ever produced, before or after, and which had a success and impact on the world that is truly incredible and noteworthy. It should be assigned to a film that practically everybody should know about. But most of all, it must have brought you (as the one who express the title) on an amazing ride and provided a unique and fantastic experience that you cannot compare to any other film that you have witnessed in your life. This is most effective if it succeeds to reach down into the deepest abyss of your mind, soul, and heart. "The greatest movie ever made" is a title that is constructed out of both a subjective personal experience aswell as an objective observation of the film's impact, history, reception and legacy. Bottom line, I call it by this title simply because I've never experienced anything like Frozen, before or after, (being the first film in my memory that actually made me cry) and I highly doubt anything as great or greater will be produced in the near future. Everyone are entitled to agree or disagree with my views, because at the end of the day, it's all about personal opinions and preferences.

      Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs did manage to not only highlight internal beauty vs. internal ugliness, but even showed the dangers of actually dismissing someone's hideous appearance especially when said someone turns out to be just as ugly on the inside as on the outside, so it arguably actually did a far better job than Frozen did.

      While, yes, this could be seen as an important message that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs succeeded to bring forth. However, I do not see how this had anything to do with the contents of Frozen or how it could compare, thus niether do I see how it did "a better job" than Frozen. These two films are essentially completely different and can barely be compared to one another or their respective materials, with an exception of a few minor details.

      I may agree with you on Toy Story, niether of its sequels were necessary, but it appears they were just produced for the sake of creating another entertaining movie with a different exciting storyline. However, I grew up with the Toy Story films and I cannot complain, and Toy Story 3 was such a great ending on this tale for me, it was a bit like saying goodbye to my childhood but at the same time having the feeling it would stay with me forever. I'm again worried about Toy Story 4, that it would ruin the great ending of the third film, but what can I do? I'm just gonna have to sit by and watch, perhaps even try to enjoy the fourth film if it is to exist anyways.

      Hans did provide subtle clues as to his true intentions throughout the film, but granted, a lot of people doesn't notice them, which further helps the plot twist at the end to have a more successful effect. The audience always thought of Hans as a good guy, but knowing who he really is now would make us see him, his words and behaviour in a different light while re-watching the film. Wait, have you not seen the film? If not, I advice you to do so.

      I understand how you see the title of "greatest (something) of all time", and I hope I've given you an understandable example of how I personally see it. I must also point out that, before I had experienced Frozen, I held a very word-by-word-similar or indentical view on this title as the one that you're expressing here. I thought calling a film "the greatest ever made" was ridiculous and useless and that there was no such a thing and could never be. Frozen just somehow made me completely reconsider my previous views. But that's just me!

        Loading editor
    • The thing is, Frozen's impact on the world wasn't that big. Yeah, a lot of people know what it is, but I don't think it caused this huge impact on the world. I honestly think Stars Wars had a bigger impact on the world than Frozen and I don't even like that film. Is Frozen really the only movie that made you cry? I wouldn't be surpised if you simply said you haven't cried during a film but Frozen being the film that's ever made you cry? I'm sorry but I just don't believe that. I wasn't one bit sad during the entire movie. I mean, what was there to be sad about exactly? The film was really silly to be honest. Characters like Olaf really didn't help. Now don't get me wrong, I love Olaf, he's my favorite character, but it's hard to make a movie sad with a character like him in it. The only scene that could've possibly be considered sad in the part where Anna gets Frozen which in all honesty isn't quite sad at all. Mainly because Elsa just cries and weeps the whole time and doesn't even try to use her powers to help Anna. I mean, seriously. She doesn't even try. And then when Hans comes along with that sword, Elsa doesn't do anything either! I mean, at least fight back. There's also the fact that none of this would've ever happened if Elsa and Anna's parent knew how to raise children. They're terrible parents and I seriously think they deserved to die in that storm. 

        Loading editor
    • Heeha wrote:
      The thing is, Frozen's impact on the world wasn't that big. Yeah, a lot of people know what it is, but I don't think it caused this huge impact on the world. I honestly think Stars Wars had a bigger impact on the world than Frozen and I don't even like that film. Is Frozen really the only movie that made you cry? I wouldn't be surpised if you simply said you haven't cried during a film but Frozen being the film that's ever made you cry? I'm sorry but I just don't believe that. I wasn't one bit sad during the entire movie. I mean, what was there to be sad about exactly? The film was really silly to be honest. Characters like Olaf really didn't help. Now don't get me wrong, I love Olaf, he's my favorite character, but it's hard to make a movie sad with a character like him in it. The only scene that could've possibly be considered sad in the part where Anna gets Frozen which in all honesty isn't quite sad at all. Mainly because Elsa just cries and weeps the whole time and doesn't even try to use her powers to help Anna. I mean, seriously. She doesn't even try. And then when Hans comes along with that sword, Elsa doesn't do anything either! I mean, at least fight back. There's also the fact that none of this would've ever happened if Elsa and Anna's parent knew how to raise children. They're terrible parents and I seriously think they deserved to die in that storm. 

      I don't know whether you are just ignorant of the realityright now, or if you just somehow missed how this film took over the world. This link http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/how-frozen-took-over-the-world is a good example of what kind of an impact this film has had the world over, and there are plenty more examples once you do a quick little Google search (not to mention how many awards this film has recieved and how many records it broke). Star Wars (like so many other films like Lord of the Rings for example) indeed had a great and lasting impact on the world, but no film quite had the same kind of unique impact that Frozen did. You know there's a reason why, unlike other films, people today call Frozen a phenomenon. I've already been through this many times before, so that's that.

      And yes, throughout my life there's never really been a moment where I've cried during a movie, and any time it felt like I could cry I could just easily hold it in without effort. Though after I had watched Frozen, I "cried buckets"! I even remember the shocked face on my sister when she asked "Are you crying?" and I answered "Yes!" with tears running down my cheeks. The only time in my life that I cried in a movie theatre was during this film, this is also the only film that I've watched six times at the theatre, and that's saying a lot in my case. I don't really care whether you believe it or not, it's reality to me.

      You seriously dare to say this film wasn't sad but silly? Well, you are entitled to your own opinion, however I would not advice you to say that to the millions of Frozen-fans out there (kids, teens, adults, elders; males and females) who will tell you that they cried during this film. Olaf was as necessary as every other detail in the film, and he's one of the reasons why tears were brought to people's eyes. You may just fail to realize it for the moment. You seem to have a problem with people crying. Do you realize WHY Elsa is crying? It's because she's just been informed that she had killed her own sister! Who, except a person with a frozen heart, wouldn't cry?! Elsa is also all sad throughout the film because of all the fear that's been present and untreated through her life (fear is also the actual villain in this film, a villain that is finally defeated by means of true love). Why does this film make me (or anyone else for that matter) cry? It's because of the amazing and touching story that this film tells, the emotions are present all along as we are taken on this fantastic emotional journey.

      By the way, the fact that I cry to the film doesn't mean I only cry because it is sad (like when the sisters are locked away from each other; Elsa is raised by fear; their parents die; the sisters keep staying apart against their will; people misunderstand Elsa; Anna and Elsa's duet at the Ice Palace; Hans betrays Anna; Anna "realizes" no one loves her; Hans tells Elsa she killed her sister; Anna sacrifices herself for Elsa) but it also means I cry because of the happy parts (like the sisters happy childhood where they build Olaf for the first, and almost last, time; Anna's enthusiasm for finally actually hanging out with Elsa and other people as she would in normal circumstances; Anna's cute relationship with Hans, as compensation for not hanging out with her sister; the sisters' charming reunion at the coronation; the cinematic wonder and liberation for Elsa that is Let It Go; when Anna meets Olaf alive and her childhood memories comes back; when Kristoff takes Anna to the trolls to save her, and at the same time clearly shows his affection for her, and later leaves her to be with another man forever, despite they both love each other; when Olaf simply explains to a depressed Anna what love really means and she realizes Kristoff really do love her and Olaf tells her he's coming back; when the true love between the two sisters thaws Anna's heart and destroys the fear that surrounded Elsa, as she realizes love is the answer; all the last happy sequences where Anna and Elsa are reintroduced to the childhood that they lost and the family is reunited once and for all).

      When you say that Elsa "didn't even try to use her powers to help Anna", do you ralize that the reason for that is because Elsa doesn't know how she can help her with her powers, she doesn't even know Anna's heart was frozen until Hans told her about it. You see the fallacy in your reasoning? Also, when Hans draws his sword on Elsa, why would she fight back? She was just told that she had killed her sister, and Anna meant everything to Elsa, she was all that Elsa had. All these years trying to protect Anna from her powers, and now her worst nightmare has come true, she froze the warm and loving heart of her own beloved sister. It's understandable that Elsa don't wish to live anymore, and that she thinks she deserves any punishment that she gets, including death. She doesn't fight back, because she doesn't care anymore. The fact that their parents raised them this way is what brought this special story forward. It's sad, yes, and the parents may not have known how they should have handled the situation, but they were loving parents who did their best to keep their daughters and everyone else safe. It's not like the King and Queen were evil or anything, they loved their kids so much, they just made the wrong choices, as parents or anyone can sometimes do. They certainly did not deserve to die the way they did. Their death only made it worse for their daughters' situation, which is also a reason why this is so sad you can cry.

        Loading editor
    • Please explain to me how I'm ignoring reality. How the heck am I supposed to know about the most popular baby names? Also, I don't know about you, but where I live, Frozen isn't very popular. It was when it first came out, I couldn't go a way without seeing someone wearing a Frozen shirt or some reference being made. But now, nobody does that stuff anymore. Yeah, you'll get the occasional Frozen shirt or reference but as often as you would when it first came out. 

      The problem is that the film is silly. You can say it's sad all you want but it's still silly. Having a talking snowman as one of your main characters automatically makes you film silly. Especially when he's used for comedy. Just saying. Sure, there were some sad elements in it, but you can't say the film wasn't really because it was. Those constant musical numbers don't really help the film with not being silly either. And no, I don't have anything against crying. I don't know what makes you think that. All I said was that I didn't think this film was sad. 

      Yes, Elsa doesn't know how she could use her powers to help Anna, but that doesn't mean she could at least try. I mean, come on. She could've at least tried, it might not have worked, but at least it wouldn't of seeme like she was being completely useless. Also, I don't know about you, but if I had just killed someone I love by mistake then I would still fight back if someone was trying to kill me. Especially if I had ice powers. Not to mention that if I fought back, I might've been able to find a way to control those powers and bring that person back to life. Also, from the looks of it, it seems Hans was trying to slice both Elsa and Hans in half. 

      Also, how the parents treated their children is not a matter of "they just didn't know how to handle the situation". No, that was them being idiots, plain and simple. The trolls told them that fear would be their enemy. So, what do their parents do? Have Anna's memory erased and make Elsa think that she's a monster. Because that's a sure fire way to stop fear, right? Also, Anna's the one who kept bugging Elsa to play with her, so techichally a big part of what happend is also Anna's fault. 

      Why weren't the parents watching their kids when this happened? And anyway, if they were actually being good parents, they wouldn't of died. They obviously knew Elsa was struggling, your child is more important than some dumb wedding your friends are having. Also, I'd like to point out that these fools isolated their kids from the entire world. As in, they couldn't talk to anyone. They didn't even let them talk to themselves! They could literally talk to no one. That's terrible parenting, nothing to justify what they did. 

      Also, I'd like to ask you a question. Do you think this film was perfect? Do you think that there was absolutely no flaws whatsoever in it? Is that what you think about this film? I'd really like to know. 

        Loading editor
    • First of all, don't take this too seriously. Second, I never said you were ignorant of reality, I merely implied that those were the kind of vibes you were sending out. I never said you had to know about the baby-names deal, but if you are really to argue about this film not having been of any significant impact on the worldwide culture then you really must know what you're talking about first, not just make claims and then have them all falsified because you ignored or never cared to actually delve into really how significant the reception and legacy of this film have turned out. My main point is, do not make statements you cannot support. Regarding the area where you live, first it must be stated that just as easily as you made up claims earlier you could easily make that up aswell (you haven't really deserved the badge of credibility, if you know what I mean), but for sake of argument, let's assume you're telling the truth. The fact that you say the film "isn't popular" where you live may be because 1) you need to get out more or 2) you know the film is probably not very popular on Antarctica either, but I guess that's because the popularity of a film varries greatly from location to location.

      Either way, it suffice to say, your example is useless in a discussion that has to do with the impact that the film had on the enitre worldwide culture, and I can aswell tell you the Frozen-craze is still very much going on where I live as it is everywhere else I go and look. In fact, I'd dare to say it has increased since release and worldwide recognition, as I see many more references and people speaking of it and singing the songs, more products in stores, more advertisements, aswell as schools having Frozen-themed projects and musicals going on and people designing their homes and plan parties inspired by the film. Frozen has become part of ordinary life.

      You can call it "silly" all you want, you are afterall entitled to your own personal opinion. However, I won't share that view in a million years as it makes no sense to me how you can call it that. The fact that Olaf is a live talking snowman is no reason for you to state that this should judge the film as a whole. I'm making an educated guess and say you don't realize that Olaf's behaviour and his words are meaningful references to the film's touching storyline. Like his popular saying of "Hi, I'm Olaf, and I like warm hugs!", this is a clear reference back to the two sisters' tragic childhood and we are shown how Anna evidently remembers him and that Elsa built him for her (not to mention Elsa was the one who came up with his line of "warm hugs", which also ends up becoming Olaf's obsession with summer which is like a child's exaggeration of that same previous line, which is also hilarious and cute, aswell as iconic).

      Another example is (as I mentioned in my previous reply) the touching moment at the end of the film where Olaf saves Anna by explaining to her (by a child's simple but wise mind) what love really is and that she is indeed loved. Just because he's a talking snowman doesn't make the film anything like "silly", not if the character is handled right and serves a special purpose. Nor does his comedic lines make the film silly, they're part of his childish character which in turn is based upon the happiness of Elsa and Anna's lost childhood. He's a memory or an echoe back to the time when the siblings were living a happy life, and he's been brought back to help them reunite. That's beautiful, not "silly". I do not understand what you mean by "you can't say the film wasn't really because it was", that makes no sense. The musical numbers are as far from coming across as "silly" as I am from evolving into an elephant over the night.

      The musical numbers are catchy, beautiful, touching, and they bring the story forward in a wonderful way, as each song tells a story and reflects the great characters in the film. "And no, I don't have anything against crying. I don't know what makes you think that."? Seriously? You previously stated that "Elsa was crying and weeping all the time" and having it come across as if it was something bad, while you evidently didn't seem to quite understand just why Elsa was crying (in the few scenes where she did) and feeling sad in the first place. One really must have a frozen heart for complaining instead of feeling with Elsa due to the circumstances in her story. I would understand you if she was crying over having lost all of her shoes and fashion accessories (now that would have been silly), but she wasn't, she cried because of true love (an actual reason to cry), because of the troubles that she'd caused to her family that she loved so dearly. And you must know that love is one of the most powerful and most important things in this world. Thus far, you're attempts at ridiculing this amazing film (which would go on to become a worldwide phenomenon that touched the hearts of entire generations) have been a lost cause.

      Elsa cannot try to help Anna because 1) Elsa doesn't even know that Anna needs help (heck, it's even Pabbie the troll who later tells Anna her heart is frozen) and 2) Elsa couldn't even try to help Anna because she still wouldn't know how. So, you call Elsa "useless"? That doesn't even deserve a reply. Anna was the last person in Elsa's life that she deeply cared for, she was her last family-member, I sure as hell would never be able to live with myself knowing I had killed my only family member. To hold on to the idea that Elsa would fight back against Hans' sword is pointless. You must realize that Elsa was ready to die, and that makes this scene even more serious and requires that you look at it with a serious mind. She wouldn't fight back. Even if she had, it wouldn't have been in the film's favour. "it seems Hans was trying to slice both Elsa and Hans in half"? What? How does that even make any sense? Let me ask you this, are you trolling me?

      First, it was most definetely a matter of "they just didn't know how to handle the situation". Where they "idiots"? A little bit, yeah, but not entirely. They only did what they thought was best at the moment, they could never have predicted the dire consequences of their actions. Second, yes, Pabbie told them that "fear could become your enemy", but the king and queen could never know when fear would strike, they never knew that their attempts at protecting both their daughters and the people of Arendelle would completely awaken the dangerous enemy that the emotion of fear was about to become. It was actually Pabbie who recommended that they remove Anna's memories of magic, for safety reasons, and the parents didn't try to make Elsa think she was a "monster", they were trying to help her out of pure love all along, they just lacked the knowledge on how to deal with the situation. And I guess the parents were a little scared themselves that their daughters would be harmed, so I guess fear strook earlier and wider than we may have thought (if we count away the moment in the castle where Elsa first strikes Anna and fears the worst). "Anna's the one who kept bugging Elsa to play with her, so techichally a big part of what happend is also Anna's fault." - Hence why Anna's memories of Elsa's magic were removed. And afterall, they were kids, and completely oblivious to what could go wrong.

      "Why weren't the parents watching Anna and Elsa as they played?" Because it was in the middle of the night, the parents probably assumed Anna and Elsa were sleeping, but you know how kids are. "if they were actually being good parents, they wouldn't of ided"? How does that even make any sense? (again, are you trolling me?) It's not as if the parents wished to die, but they got caught in a storm and were killed by the waves of the sea. And how do you know the parents were off to a "wedding"? They could aswell have been off to seek a solution to the problem that Elsa's powers have become, which they are actually doing in the Frozen-arc of the fourth season of Once Upon a Time. Learn before you speak. And again I must point out that the reason for having their children (especially Elsa) isolated is because of Elsa's powers and that she needs to learn to control them. Despite their choices, they certainly don't mean to be bad parents. However, don't be foolish, the sisters definetely must have spoke to people (specifically their parents and the reduced castle staff, like Kai and Gerda).

      As an answer to your last question (even though I feel you're just trolling with me, I'm gonna provide an answer anyway); Yes, I consider this film to be the very definition of the word "perfection" aswell as the only film that I can honestly call "flawless" as there are no visible flaws in this film. And yes, that is my true opinion on this film. Now, I hope you won't be trolling too much in the next reply but actually demonstrate that you can act like a respectable human being. Also, you may excuse me for my rather long reply.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, I'm getting really tired of this agrument so I'm only going to answer the first two paragraphs and then the last one. You win for all the rest of the stuff you've written.

      I don't know why you automatically assume that I'm making up stuff. Why the heck would I make that up? You said I made up earlier claims. What claims did I make up earlier? Explain that to me because I don't remember making up anything I've said in this entire agrument. Seriously? I need to go out more? You do realize that pretty much everyday I go out to waste my time at school? And that I don't really see much of Frozen there? I also go out to visit people and buy stuff. And since we're at the store and Frozen has such a big impact like you said, it should be filled with Frozen merchandise, right?

      Nope. There's a small box thing at Walmart that has Frozen toys but it's just a whole bunch of Anna, Elsa, and Olaf toys. I'll see one or two shirts here and there. I'm not saying there's no merchandise but it's not that much. Actually, I think I see more SpongeBob stuff than Frozen stuff. By the way, you just contradicted yourself. You said that it may not be popular where I live but you also said it had a worldwide impact. If it's impact is worldwide, how come it's not popular here? 

      That pretty much sums it up. You're being utterly ridicoulous. This obsession you have with this film has gone way too far. Way way too far. You're saying that I'm not being a respectable human being simply because I'm questioning some of the things in the film? I can respect this being your favorite film but I can't respect you constantly bragging about how it's had such a big impact (when it really hasn't by the way), how it brought in so much money, and how it's flawless. When it's not. 

      I'm sorry but Frozen is nowhere close to being flawless. It's fine to have a favorite film but you don't have to constantly praise it. You need to at least acknowledge the flaws in it. You can't call it flawless because it's not. What about those unneeded musical numbers? Wait. Nevermind. You're going to say you liked them. Fine, that's an opinion. But what about animation errors? I do believe there was a glaring animation error in "Let It Go" where Elsa's hair passes through her shoulder or something like that. 

      Yeah, it's not a very important flaw and it's incredibly minor but it's still a flaw. And can't be flawless if you have a flaw. Even it's a tiny, tiny, tiny one. I have no problem with this being your favorite film, but I do have a problem with you making up stuff about them to try and justify your claims. It's your opinion, you don't have to lie about things to justify it. I'm pretty sure that other films are had bigger impacts than Frozen. Also, don't get mad at someone for critisizing it! I mean calm down. You're the one who made the thread and whenever people stop replying, you always beg for activity. 

      And when when people say they disagree, you always try to convince it is the greatest film when it's not! Also, I've never heard of the Frozen phenomeon or whatever until you mentioned it. But I suspect you're going to say I'm lying again, correct? Anyway, this conversation is over. Until you reply and try to prove me wrong in which I will reply back, very annoyed with the claims you made. 

        Loading editor
    • What I was refering to when I said you "made things up" was your claim that "Frozen's impact on the world wasn't that big." Unless you've been living under a rock for the past year you'd know better than to spit out such nonsense. This film had an impact on the world that was of great significance, this is also something a great amount of journalists worldwide have observed and acknowledged. I didn't say "you need to get out more", I put it forth as an alternative explanation to the situation where you live, whereas the second explanation was my main point. "You do realize that pretty much everyday I go out to waste my time at school?" No, I do not realize that or anything else that you claim to do, and do you know why? Because I do not know you or your personal life or personal information. It's that simple. I can only speculate and guess when it comes to you. Anyway, my second explanation (that the popularity of the film may vary depending on location), and your words only goes to show that we live in two completely different locations where the popularity of the film greatly varries, hence proving my point (if you're telling the truth, that is).

      I "contradicted myself"? I believe you are confusing yourself. You need to understand that "worldwide impact" is NOT synonymous with the location where you live, but it means the whole world overall, not any specific location in the world. And I've already stated that the popularity of a film always vary depending on location. You need to get a grip on this, otherwise you cannot have this kind of discussion.

      You think I'm ridiculous? Fine, you are entitled to your own opinion, just don't forget you were the one who used your own home location as a synonym for the wording of "the whole world" (you must understand that the world is much bigger than your home town), and that really makes you a hypocrite. My "obsession" with this film hasn't gone "way way too far" at all, that's just childish nonsense. You've misunderstood me completely, I'm not at all saying that "you aren't a respectable human being just because you're questioning some things in the film", what I was refering to when I said that you should act like a "respectable human being" was your suspicious and childish behaviour (where I noticed what seemed like hints to internet trolling, and I apologize if you aren't a troll), not your criticism towards the film.

      The fact that you misunderstand my words and overreact to this degree, aswell as admitting you cannot respect my personal opinions, only shows you need to mature before this can become a proper discussion (please, don't overreact at this too). If you are to respect my personal opinion, you'll have to truly demonstrate that you can do so, and that means you should not get upset by how much I am speaking of and praising this film. Seriously, what is the real issue? Because this makes it seem as if you seek to forcefully change my opinion to match yours, and that's nothing less than ignorant. I do not intend to insult you here, but to tell you what you are doing and how you are behaving (of course, if you are to realize it is up to you).

      Whether you like it or not, Frozen has definetely made a significant worldwide impact, and I'm not the first who said it, you can read of many such observations just by a simple Google-search. The film has also brought in a considerable amount of money, resulting in it becoming (1) the highest grossing animated film of all time, (2) the third highest grossing original film of all time, (3) the fifth highest grossing film of all time, (4) the highest grossing Disney-film of all time, (5) the highest grossing film of 2013, (6) aswell as the first film in history to be written and directed by a woman (and where the film has two female leads aswell) to reel in over 1 billion dollars. If you didn't even know about these things that you denied were true, then you've truly got a lot to catch up on! Whether this film is "flawless" or not is entirely a matter of personal perceptions, and you are definetely entitled to disagree. Unlike you, I'm not trying to force my personal opinions on you. Also, as you read my replies, don't confuse my expressed opinions with the presented facts, that'll just make this whole discussion confusing (if it isn't already).

      Again, just because I call Frozen flawless doesn't mean you have to, because yet again, you are entitled to your own opinion. It's definetely fine to have a favourite film, and yes, you don't have to constantly praise it, but that doesn't mean you won't constantly praise it. You see, when an individual likes a certain film a lot, this person can praise it how much he/she wants, and that's none of your business! If you find it annoying, then leave (and by that I DON'T mean "leave a comment"), and don't start a conversation you're not ready to have! What "flaws"? There are no visible flaws in this film, and anytime somebody has tried to come up with one it turns out to be nothing of the sort. I definetely can call it flawless because that's how I personally experience this film, and you've gotta learn to accept that and live with it, dear. What "unneeded musical numbers"? Animation "errors" (defined as "something that is not correct : a wrong action or statement") are not synonymous with the word "flaw" (defined as "an imperfection or weakness and especially one that detracts from the whole or hinders effectiveness").

      There can be minor errors in any film, but do not confuse these for being "flaws/major flaws" (unless you have a personal definition of the word that I do not know about). A flaw should be something that negatively affects the entire film, and there is no such thing in this film. During the "Let It Go"-sequence, Elsa's braid does pass through her shoulder (it took me some time to see it at first when I found out about it), but the animators stated that they left it like that because they couldn't make it work any other way at the time. I would categorize this as a clear minor [intended] "error", NOT a flaw, and it's not really the easiest thing for the audience to spot as they hid it well in Elsa's captivating movements, and it must be noted that it doesn't affect the film at all.

      Yeah, if you really has to nitpick "flaws" from the tiniest errors in the film and cannot bring up a real example of a flaw that affects the film, then you really has to ask yourself "Am I right about this or am I just making things up for the sake of "winning an argument" and forcing someone to agree with my views?" I am certainly not "making stuff up" or "lying" (and now you're just acting like a copycat with words as a last defense; why be defensive at all when this is just a place for friendly discussions?), what is it that I supposedly "made up and lied about"? You can easily look up everything that I've said here (that isn't part of my personal views of the film) and see for yourself that I'm telling the truth. There is no single film with an impact larger or more significant than the impact of Frozen, however, there are franchises, like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, which can be compared to its impact and legacy.

      The only problem with those franchises is that they've been around for a much longer period (we're talking something like 40-15 years) and Frozen has only been around for one single year yet, but despite only being around for such a short time span, this one film accomplished much more in our modern day culture and media than any other franchise has ever achieved with their initial films. And just as I predicted that Frozen would win at the Oscars and reel in over 1 billion dollars, I can also predict that Frozen (as a franchise) will grow considerably larger by the coming 19 years. So be prepared, that's all I'm gonna say. Also, I never get mad at someone who merely criticizes a certain film I like, I believe pure criticism is healthy, but rude and childish/careless criticism is (on the contrary) very unhealthy. Do not confuse or lie to yourself that I have been "mad at you for criticizing a film I like". Unlike you, I was never mad during this conversation, and I tried to properly respond both to your criticism and your rude behaviour. I am calm and have stayed calm throughout the line of conversations in each of my started threads, isn't it so that it is yourself who should consider staying calm (by your words to judge)? I do not mean to be disrespectful. I know that I beg for activity, but that doesn't mean I'm also begging for rude behaviour, I'm begging for healthy and friendly discussions.

      I never try to convince people that this is "the greatest film of all time", that's a clear misunderstanding of my comments, on your part. People are entitled to disagree, and I don't have any problem with differing opinions, as can be observed. However, I will take part in discussions. But you will never see me trying to convince or force someone to think that Frozen is "the greatest film", that's merely your own wishful or confused thinking it seems, and not a very good response on that. It's entirely possible that you've never heard of the Frozen-phenomenon, what would I gain in calling this a lie of yours? Please, again, do not overreact, but try (at least try) to understand what I'm saying, because I'm not trying to be rude towards you, but you'll have to watch your behaviour. If this conversation is "over", then you just contradicted yourself by stating that you will "reply if I reply to you", then you lied and the conversation isn't really over, is it? Anyhow, please do not feel annoyed, do not feel threatened, and do not feel insulted, because that's just not healthy. If you don't wish to have this conversation or if it makes you feel annoyed, then just leave and don't bother anyone, and go do whatever might give you pleasure in your real life! I apologize for the many rows of words.

        Loading editor
    • Nope. That title goes to Tangled.

        Loading editor
    • TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Nope. That title goes to Tangled.

      It certainly has the best animation of any CG Disney feature, but I can think of at least 20 animated films better than Tangled.

      That being said, I LOVE TANGLED!!! :P

        Loading editor
    • ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Nope. That title goes to Tangled.
      It certainly has the best animation of any CG Disney feature, but I can think of at least 20 animated films better than Tangled.

      That being said, I LOVE TANGLED!!! :P

      I don't know about "best animation", I'd say that goes to Frozen, but let's be honest here, I think we all love Tangled.

        Loading editor
    • Varg2000 wrote:
      ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Nope. That title goes to Tangled.
      It certainly has the best animation of any CG Disney feature, but I can think of at least 20 animated films better than Tangled.

      That being said, I LOVE TANGLED!!! :P

      I don't know about "best animation", I'd say that goes to Frozen, but let's be honest here, I think we all love Tangled.

      Well, it certainly has the most Disney-feeling animation. But, then again Wreck it Ralph still has more creative animation than Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Tangled, Frozen and BH6.

      The animation on Frozen was beautiful, no denying, and the ice palace looks amazing.

        Loading editor
    • ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      Varg2000 wrote:
      ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Nope. That title goes to Tangled.
      It certainly has the best animation of any CG Disney feature, but I can think of at least 20 animated films better than Tangled.

      That being said, I LOVE TANGLED!!! :P

      I don't know about "best animation", I'd say that goes to Frozen, but let's be honest here, I think we all love Tangled.
      Well, it certainly has the most Disney-feeling animation. But, then again Wreck it Ralph still has more creative animation than Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Tangled, Frozen and BH6.

      The animation on Frozen was beautiful, no denying, and the ice palace looks amazing.

      Indeed, however, when you say that Wreck-It Ralph has more creative animation, is there something in particular that sets it aside from the rest? I mean could you give an example for example?

        Loading editor
    • Varg2000 wrote:
      ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      Varg2000 wrote:
      ToyStoryFan123 wrote:
      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Nope. That title goes to Tangled.
      It certainly has the best animation of any CG Disney feature, but I can think of at least 20 animated films better than Tangled.

      That being said, I LOVE TANGLED!!! :P

      I don't know about "best animation", I'd say that goes to Frozen, but let's be honest here, I think we all love Tangled.
      Well, it certainly has the most Disney-feeling animation. But, then again Wreck it Ralph still has more creative animation than Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, Tangled, Frozen and BH6.

      The animation on Frozen was beautiful, no denying, and the ice palace looks amazing.

      Indeed, however, when you say that Wreck-It Ralph has more creative animation, is there something in particular that sets it aside from the rest? I mean could you give an example for example?

      Hmm, well to name a few:

      1) The way the Nicelanders walk.

      2) The way characters like Calhoun who look semi-realstic still merge well with the cartoony Sugar Crush backgrounds

      3) The way the pixels on the screen transition to the computer animation.

      4) The designs of the Sugar Crush citizens.

      5) The amount of variety in the animation. (Though that kinda is my biggest contention with the film :/ Because as much variety of styles as there are, it feels as though there could have been some stuff animated entirely in 8 bit style or if they'd got actual video game programmers to animate Calhoun and such. This being said, they style works for the Sugar Crush area)

        Loading editor
    • In my opinion Tale of the Princess Kaguya is the best animated movie ever made about a princess story. Beauty and the Beast is my life challenger as Disney movie, and Frozen a Parker & Stone rancid joke.

        Loading editor
    • Cloverfield monster wrote:
      I disagree. For me, Toy Story comes closer to such a distinction.

      I would have to agree! I do love Frozen and consider it one of my favourites (along with Spirited Away and every Pixar Movie (minus Cars 2))

        Loading editor
    • French sw-beast wrote:
      In my opinion Tale of the Princess Kaguya is the best animated movie ever made about a princess story. Beauty and the Beast is my life challenger as Disney movie, and Frozen a Parker & Stone rancid joke.

      Did you just brought up anime for best princess movie, while Disney has literally nailed it at that domain?? No, just no... My facepalm is so strong with this one..

        Loading editor
    • TRIMC 95 wrote:
      French sw-beast wrote:
      In my opinion Tale of the Princess Kaguya is the best animated movie ever made about a princess story. Beauty and the Beast is my life challenger as Disney movie, and Frozen a Parker & Stone rancid joke.
      Did you just brought up anime for best princess movie, while Disney has literally nailed it at that domain?? No, just no... My facepalm is so strong with this one..

      Stay in your personnal borderlines, dude, I speak the voice of truth. And I like Disney Princesses too. Disney just nailed the Pink Disney Princess® to the sickness, destroying the values of this wonderful characters.

        Loading editor
    • They only thing you speak is the voice of your invalid opinion, "dude".. Again, Disney has nailed it as far as princess movies go and you just brought up anime.. Epic fail.

        Loading editor
    • TRIMC 95 wrote:
      They only thing you speak is the voice of your invalid opinion, "dude".. Again, Disney has nailed it as far as princess movies go and you just brought up anime.. Epic fail.

      What do you have against anime? I'm not even really into anime, but his opinion isn't invalid just because he brings up an anime that may actually be very good. Just because it's anime doesn't make it bad. Plus, he raises a great point about how the Disney princesses have become so commercialized that they're more known as essentially Barbie dolls than actual characters, and the reputation of a lot of classics has been rather tainted in the eyes of many people because of this. 

        Loading editor
    • I don't have anything against anime.. They just suck, simple as that.

        Loading editor
    • TRIMC 95 wrote: I don't have anything against anime.. They just suck, simple as that.

      Yeah, and I can name at least one anime that proves it, especially with how they treat their female characters (two words, "Love Hina."). Probably one of the few GOOD Anime characters was Misty from Pokémon, largely because she actually was different than most female anime characters. There's a reason why she's one of the more popular Pokémon characters to this day.

      @Nsanity64 and French sw-beast; I see your point regarding the Barbie elements, but on the other hand, speaking from personal experience where I had to deal with a militant feminist man-hater for a History professor, I'm not so sure whether the point is valid or not. Had you asked me before Spring 2011, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. And besides, the feminists who demonized homemaking as a career for women were basically extremely screwed up women anyways, like how Simone de Beauvoir basically pushed for pedophilia and basically sexually abused her female students, most of whom she procured for her lover Jean-Paul Sartre. And if Chris Queen's blog is anything to go by, they do have good role models even in the DP franchise: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/02/13/royal-role-models/ That being said, I don't think having girls come out like Queen Grimhilde is a very good idea, and that was my main complaint about the franchise.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      TRIMC 95 wrote: I don't have anything against anime.. They just suck, simple as that.

      Yeah, and I can name at least one anime that proves it, especially with how they treat their female characters (two words, "Love Hina."). Probably one of the few GOOD Anime characters was Misty from Pokémon, largely because she actually was different than most female anime characters. There's a reason why she's one of the more popular Pokémon characters to this day.

      @Nsanity64 and French sw-beast; I see your point regarding the Barbie elements, but on the other hand, speaking from personal experience where I had to deal with a militant feminist man-hater for a History professor, I'm not so sure whether the point is valid or not. Had you asked me before Spring 2011, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. And besides, the feminists who demonized homemaking as a career for women were basically extremely screwed up women anyways, like how Simone de Beauvoir basically pushed for pedophilia and basically sexually abused her female students, most of whom she procured for her lover Jean-Paul Sartre. And if Chris Queen's blog is anything to go by, they do have good role models even in the DP franchise: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/02/13/royal-role-models/ That being said, I don't think having girls come out like Queen Grimhilde is a very good idea, and that was my main complaint about the franchise.

      Basically, he's bashing the DP franchise for what?? Having become so commercialized that they're more known as essentially Barbie dolls than actual characters?? Please... Those characters are not even close to commercialized... They are some of the biggest role models for little children and all Disney does is to make them accessible for as many children as they can.. Just because they are like Barbie dolls, they're "commercialized"?.. Those characters mean the world to the little kid, who has this doll in his/her hands...  "destroying the values of this wonderful characters"... Yeah, and I'm the Pope of Rome.. Exactly how are they destroying the values of these wonderful characters?... On the contrary, they make them more accessible to little kids as possible.. Again, I'm passing on from this invalid opinion.

        Loading editor
    • TRIMC 95 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      TRIMC 95 wrote: I don't have anything against anime.. They just suck, simple as that.

      Yeah, and I can name at least one anime that proves it, especially with how they treat their female characters (two words, "Love Hina."). Probably one of the few GOOD Anime characters was Misty from Pokémon, largely because she actually was different than most female anime characters. There's a reason why she's one of the more popular Pokémon characters to this day.

      @Nsanity64 and French sw-beast; I see your point regarding the Barbie elements, but on the other hand, speaking from personal experience where I had to deal with a militant feminist man-hater for a History professor, I'm not so sure whether the point is valid or not. Had you asked me before Spring 2011, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. And besides, the feminists who demonized homemaking as a career for women were basically extremely screwed up women anyways, like how Simone de Beauvoir basically pushed for pedophilia and basically sexually abused her female students, most of whom she procured for her lover Jean-Paul Sartre. And if Chris Queen's blog is anything to go by, they do have good role models even in the DP franchise: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/02/13/royal-role-models/ That being said, I don't think having girls come out like Queen Grimhilde is a very good idea, and that was my main complaint about the franchise.

      Basically, he's bashing the DP franchise for what?? Having become so commercialized that they're more known as essentially Barbie dolls than actual characters?? Please... Those characters are not even close to commercialized... They are some of the biggest role models for little children and all Disney does is to make them accessible for as many children as they can.. Just because they are like Barbie dolls, they're "commercialized"?.. Those characters mean the world to the little kid, who has this doll in his/her hands...  "destroying the values of this wonderful characters"... Yeah, and I'm the Pope of Rome.. Exactly how are they destroying the values of these wonderful characters?... On the contrary, they make them more accessible to little kids as possible.. Again, I'm passing on from this invalid opinion.

      Were you talking to me or to NSanity64? Because I don't recall agreeing with him. Actually, for the most part, I disagreed with him.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      TRIMC 95 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      TRIMC 95 wrote: I don't have anything against anime.. They just suck, simple as that.

      Yeah, and I can name at least one anime that proves it, especially with how they treat their female characters (two words, "Love Hina."). Probably one of the few GOOD Anime characters was Misty from Pokémon, largely because she actually was different than most female anime characters. There's a reason why she's one of the more popular Pokémon characters to this day.

      @Nsanity64 and French sw-beast; I see your point regarding the Barbie elements, but on the other hand, speaking from personal experience where I had to deal with a militant feminist man-hater for a History professor, I'm not so sure whether the point is valid or not. Had you asked me before Spring 2011, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. And besides, the feminists who demonized homemaking as a career for women were basically extremely screwed up women anyways, like how Simone de Beauvoir basically pushed for pedophilia and basically sexually abused her female students, most of whom she procured for her lover Jean-Paul Sartre. And if Chris Queen's blog is anything to go by, they do have good role models even in the DP franchise: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/02/13/royal-role-models/ That being said, I don't think having girls come out like Queen Grimhilde is a very good idea, and that was my main complaint about the franchise.

      Basically, he's bashing the DP franchise for what?? Having become so commercialized that they're more known as essentially Barbie dolls than actual characters?? Please... Those characters are not even close to commercialized... They are some of the biggest role models for little children and all Disney does is to make them accessible for as many children as they can.. Just because they are like Barbie dolls, they're "commercialized"?.. Those characters mean the world to the little kid, who has this doll in his/her hands...  "destroying the values of this wonderful characters"... Yeah, and I'm the Pope of Rome.. Exactly how are they destroying the values of these wonderful characters?... On the contrary, they make them more accessible to little kids as possible.. Again, I'm passing on from this invalid opinion.
      Were you talking to me or to NSanity64? Because I don't recall agreeing with him. Actually, for the most part, I disagreed with him.

      I was talking about French Sw-beast and I was basically agreeing with you. Sorry I didn't made it clear.

        Loading editor
    • TRIMC 95 wrote:Basically, he's bashing the DP franchise for what?? Having become so commercialized that they're more known as essentially Barbie dolls than actual characters?? Please... Those characters are not even close to commercialized... They are some of the biggest role models for little children and all Disney does is to make them accessible for as many children as they can.. Just because they are like Barbie dolls, they're "commercialized"?.. Those characters mean the world to the little kid, who has this doll in his/her hands...  "destroying the values of this wonderful characters"... Yeah, and I'm the Pope of Rome.. Exactly how are they destroying the values of these wonderful characters?... On the contrary, they make them more accessible to little kids as possible.. Again, I'm passing on from this invalid opinion.

      Hasbro make more sense of elementary values with the My Little Pony franchise with plastic anthro ponies inspired by Ozamu Tezuka drawline than Disney and a class A+ of worlwide range of strong characters just praised for glitter. That's the truth from 90's Disney fans, IMO.

        Loading editor
    • Don't be ridiculous, fools. Everyone knows that FOODFIGHT is the greatest animated film of all time.

      File:Foodfight! DVD cover.jpg
















































      Do you really think I'm being serious? LOL

        Loading editor
    • Cloverfield monster wrote:
      Don't be ridiculous, fools. Everyone knows that FOODFIGHT is the greatest animated film of all time.
      File:Foodfight! DVD cover.jpg
















































      Do you really think I'm being serious? LOL


      Foodfight is like something you'll play or see in a Sims video game or an episode of The Strangerhood.

        Loading editor
    • Cloverfield monster, do I think you're being serious? Um, no. ;-)

        Loading editor
    • Varg2000 wrote:
      Cloverfield monster, do I think you're being serious? Um, no. ;-)

      Are you seriously trying to bash FoodFight, the greatest film ever made in the history of films ever made? FoodFight is the only film that's ever managed to make me cry. It was just so deep and meaningful, how can anyone not like it?

        Loading editor
    • Heeha wrote:
      Varg2000 wrote:
      Cloverfield monster, do I think you're being serious? Um, no. ;-)
      Are you seriously trying to bash FoodFight, the greatest film ever made in the history of films ever made? FoodFight is the only film that's ever managed to make me cry. It was just so deep and meaningful, how can anyone not like it?


      Well, I'll tell you.

      At the time Foodfight! was announced, the film was denounced for taking product placement to the extreme, and doing it in a film targeted at children. Kasanoff responded to the controversy by noting that they were not paid money for the brand inclusion and therefore the addition of known brands did not constitute product placement, though the brands were expected to provide $100 million worth of cross-promotion.

      As well as being a financial failure, Foodfight! was critically panned. The A.V. Club stated that "...the grotesque ugliness of the animation alone would be a deal-breaker even if the film weren't also glaringly inappropriate in its sexuality, nightmare-inducing in its animation, and filled with Nazi overtones and iconography even more egregiously unfit for children than the script's wall-to-wall gauntlet of crude double entendres and weird intimations of inter-species sex". A New York Times article condemned the film saying: "The animation appears unfinished. The sexual innuendo is flagrant for a film ostensibly aimed at children. And the plot — grocery store mascots come alive at night to fight generic Brand X antagonists intent on taking over the shelves — is impenetrable and even offensive." The New York Times article reported that Foodfight! has been "seized upon by Internet purveyors of bad cinema".

      Even the Nostalgia Critic finds it terrible in one episode when he reviews Foodfight!. After a parody of Batman Returns, where like Catwoman the Critic returns home in a daze and goes on a violent rampage on his house's objects, it is revealed that rage was caused by the Critic accepting to review Foodfight! (2012) following incessant requests by his fanbase. Agreeing to do so upon realizing his review could jumpstart it into popularity, declares it not only the worst animated movie he has ever seen, but also one of the worst movies he's ever reviewed, heavily panning the massive amount of product placement, ridiculous and inconsistent plot, horrible and often frightening animation, frequent trips into the Uncanny Valley, hideous racial stereotypes, dreadful puns and horrible sexual innuendos, the latter of which he deems unfit for what is supposedly a film for children. Special criticism is reserved for the fact that the product mascots shown are practically background characters in their own film (despite taking up a good chunk of the advertising) and half of them are bitter, unflattering parodies of the ones the producers could not afford, as well as the fact that the film's budget was apparently $65 million, which baffles him considering the outcome, and how they wasted it on the final product. Additionally, he accuses the film of feeding into unhealthy fetishes, tying into the film's heavy sexual innuendos. In the end, he figures out that the creator of the film must be Jar Jar Binks, who he fires a missile at. Afterwards, he learns that all his suffering was for nothing, as the film never became popular after all due to the "Hipster Effect", leading back to the opening, after which he warns his fellow critics to watch at their own risk.

      Watch the whole video and see for yourself:

      Food Fight - Nostalgia Critic

      Food Fight - Nostalgia Critic

      Foodfight! - JonTron

      Foodfight! - JonTron

        Loading editor
    • LegalizeAnythingMuppets wrote:
      Heeha wrote:
      Varg2000 wrote:
      Cloverfield monster, do I think you're being serious? Um, no. ;-)
      Are you seriously trying to bash FoodFight, the greatest film ever made in the history of films ever made? FoodFight is the only film that's ever managed to make me cry. It was just so deep and meaningful, how can anyone not like it?

      Well, I'll tell you.

      At the time Foodfight! was announced, the film was denounced for taking product placement to the extreme, and doing it in a film targeted at children. Kasanoff responded to the controversy by noting that they were not paid money for the brand inclusion and therefore the addition of known brands did not constitute product placement, though the brands were expected to provide $100 million worth of cross-promotion.

      As well as being a financial failure, Foodfight! was critically panned. The A.V. Club stated that "...the grotesque ugliness of the animation alone would be a deal-breaker even if the film weren't also glaringly inappropriate in its sexuality, nightmare-inducing in its animation, and filled with Nazi overtones and iconography even more egregiously unfit for children than the script's wall-to-wall gauntlet of crude double entendres and weird intimations of inter-species sex". A New York Times article condemned the film saying: "The animation appears unfinished. The sexual innuendo is flagrant for a film ostensibly aimed at children. And the plot — grocery store mascots come alive at night to fight generic Brand X antagonists intent on taking over the shelves — is impenetrable and even offensive." The New York Times article reported that Foodfight! has been "seized upon by Internet purveyors of bad cinema".

      Even the Nostalgia Critic finds it terrible in one episode when he reviews Foodfight!. After a parody of Batman Returns, where like Catwoman the Critic returns home in a daze and goes on a violent rampage on his house's objects, it is revealed that rage was caused by the Critic accepting to review Foodfight! (2012) following incessant requests by his fanbase. Agreeing to do so upon realizing his review could jumpstart it into popularity, declares it not only the worst animated movie he has ever seen, but also one of the worst movies he's ever reviewed, heavily panning the massive amount of product placement, ridiculous and inconsistent plot, horrible and often frightening animation, frequent trips into the Uncanny Valley, hideous racial stereotypes, dreadful puns and horrible sexual innuendos, the latter of which he deems unfit for what is supposedly a film for children. Special criticism is reserved for the fact that the product mascots shown are practically background characters in their own film (despite taking up a good chunk of the advertising) and half of them are bitter, unflattering parodies of the ones the producers could not afford, as well as the fact that the film's budget was apparently $65 million, which baffles him considering the outcome, and how they wasted it on the final product. Additionally, he accuses the film of feeding into unhealthy fetishes, tying into the film's heavy sexual innuendos. In the end, he figures out that the creator of the film must be Jar Jar Binks, who he fires a missile at. Afterwards, he learns that all his suffering was for nothing, as the film never became popular after all due to the "Hipster Effect", leading back to the opening, after which he warns his fellow critics to watch at their own risk.

      Watch the whole video and see for yourself:

      Food Fight - Nostalgia Critic

      Food Fight - Nostalgia Critic

      Foodfight! - JonTron

      Foodfight! - JonTron

      Um, I'm pretty sure he was kidding when he said that. No need to get into all of that. 

        Loading editor
    • Lovefiction wrote:

      LegalizeAnythingMuppets wrote:
      Heeha wrote:
      Varg2000 wrote:
      Cloverfield monster, do I think you're being serious? Um, no. ;-)
      Are you seriously trying to bash FoodFight, the greatest film ever made in the history of films ever made? FoodFight is the only film that's ever managed to make me cry. It was just so deep and meaningful, how can anyone not like it?

      Well, I'll tell you.

      At the time Foodfight! was announced, the film was denounced for taking product placement to the extreme, and doing it in a film targeted at children. Kasanoff responded to the controversy by noting that they were not paid money for the brand inclusion and therefore the addition of known brands did not constitute product placement, though the brands were expected to provide $100 million worth of cross-promotion.

      As well as being a financial failure, Foodfight! was critically panned. The A.V. Club stated that "...the grotesque ugliness of the animation alone would be a deal-breaker even if the film weren't also glaringly inappropriate in its sexuality, nightmare-inducing in its animation, and filled with Nazi overtones and iconography even more egregiously unfit for children than the script's wall-to-wall gauntlet of crude double entendres and weird intimations of inter-species sex". A New York Times article condemned the film saying: "The animation appears unfinished. The sexual innuendo is flagrant for a film ostensibly aimed at children. And the plot — grocery store mascots come alive at night to fight generic Brand X antagonists intent on taking over the shelves — is impenetrable and even offensive." The New York Times article reported that Foodfight! has been "seized upon by Internet purveyors of bad cinema".

      Even the Nostalgia Critic finds it terrible in one episode when he reviews Foodfight!. After a parody of Batman Returns, where like Catwoman the Critic returns home in a daze and goes on a violent rampage on his house's objects, it is revealed that rage was caused by the Critic accepting to review Foodfight! (2012) following incessant requests by his fanbase. Agreeing to do so upon realizing his review could jumpstart it into popularity, declares it not only the worst animated movie he has ever seen, but also one of the worst movies he's ever reviewed, heavily panning the massive amount of product placement, ridiculous and inconsistent plot, horrible and often frightening animation, frequent trips into the Uncanny Valley, hideous racial stereotypes, dreadful puns and horrible sexual innuendos, the latter of which he deems unfit for what is supposedly a film for children. Special criticism is reserved for the fact that the product mascots shown are practically background characters in their own film (despite taking up a good chunk of the advertising) and half of them are bitter, unflattering parodies of the ones the producers could not afford, as well as the fact that the film's budget was apparently $65 million, which baffles him considering the outcome, and how they wasted it on the final product. Additionally, he accuses the film of feeding into unhealthy fetishes, tying into the film's heavy sexual innuendos. In the end, he figures out that the creator of the film must be Jar Jar Binks, who he fires a missile at. Afterwards, he learns that all his suffering was for nothing, as the film never became popular after all due to the "Hipster Effect", leading back to the opening, after which he warns his fellow critics to watch at their own risk.

      Watch the whole video and see for yourself:

      Food Fight - Nostalgia Critic

      Food Fight - Nostalgia Critic

      Foodfight! - JonTron

      Foodfight! - JonTron

      Um, I'm pretty sure he was kidding when he said that. No need to get into all of that. 

      I know, but I just want to give out a pretty long and good reason why everybody hates the Food Fight! movie. And in case from Rabbit and Pooh's quote from The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh episode "Tigger Got Your Tongue" that "there is a reasonable explaination for everything!"

        Loading editor
    • Heeha wrote:
      Varg2000 wrote:
      Cloverfield monster, do I think you're being serious? Um, no. ;-)
      Are you seriously trying to bash FoodFight, the greatest film ever made in the history of films ever made? FoodFight is the only film that's ever managed to make me cry. It was just so deep and meaningful, how can anyone not like it?

      Of course!!! Youre absolutely right, and I and everyone else are so wrong!!! How could I not see that??? ;-)

        Loading editor
    • It's kinda far from that position, but I agreed there has to be a reason why some of the audience - including critics - called Frozen "the best ever". I wasn't sure why I was so attracted to it back then, even to the point of obsession (the start of being a huge fangirl). I just knew that I love it. 

      The best Disney film, however...I'm not sure exactly. But I guaranteed Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King (and other Renaissance plus Classics films) hold top spots. And although an unnecessary sequel, I think Toy Story 3 is the best in the trilogy. 

        Loading editor
    • ChocoholicNArt wrote:
      It's kinda far from that position, but I agreed there has to be a reason why some of the audience - including critics - called Frozen "the best ever". I wasn't sure why I was so attracted to it back then, even to the point of obsession (the start of being a huge fangirl). I just knew that I love it. 

      The best Disney film, however...I'm not sure exactly. But I guaranteed Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King (and other Renaissance plus Classics films) hold top spots. And although an unnecessary sequel, I think Toy Story 3 is the best in the trilogy. 

      And I don't think any other animated films have been seen in the top 5 of any lists more than "Pinocchio" and "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"

        Loading editor
    • My answer is clear from my username ;)

        Loading editor
    • I think that Frozen is the greatest animated film ever made.

        Loading editor
    • Fantasia

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't say Frozen is the best animated film of all time, but I definitely think it's one of the best of all time :)

        Loading editor
    • Jjuser wrote:
      I wouldn't say Frozen is the best animated film of all time, but I definitely think it's one of the best of all time :)

      Good opinion.

        Loading editor
    • It's one of the best but to me, it's not the best :)

      There are a ton of animated films I think is better than Frozen, for me at least...

      Up, WALL-E, Finding Nemo, the Toy Story franchise, Zootopia, How To Train Your Dragon, Inside Out...

      Those are just a few :D

        Loading editor
    • One word: NO. Why? Overrated. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message