FANDOM


  • What will be the future of Hans in the Frozen universe? Will he continue to be a villain or will he redeem? Will he escape his sentence? I could see him escaping with an army to attack Arendelle just like Napoleon's escape from Elba and his Hundred Days. I am very curious to what will happen with Hans.

      Loading editor
    • Well Hans is a Soceopath wich means he dous't feel guilt so he dafinitly won't redeem. Personaly I could also see that part about an army happinging.

        Loading editor
    • Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: Well Hans is a Soceopath wich means he dous't feel guilt so he dafinitly won't redeem. Personaly I could also see that part about an army happinging.

      Hans is not a sociopath and he most like capable of feeling guilt. He still may want to rule Arendelle though. He could escape and use a citizen army to try to gain power in Arendelle. He would be a parallel of Napoleon in that case. He could also redeem and help the sisters defeat their new villain. I hope he wins either way.

        Loading editor
    • Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Agreed

        Loading editor
    • Jjuser wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Agreed

      Do you think he should be back for one more attempt at gaining power in Arendelle?

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Agreed

      Do you think he should be back for one more attempt at gaining power in Arendelle?

      No

        Loading editor
    • Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Agreed

      Do you think he should be back for one more attempt at gaining power in Arendelle?

      No

      That would make an interesting scenario. His escape scene could look like this:
      Napoleon escapes from Elba

      Napoleon escapes from Elba

      Hans could escape from his sentence in the Southern Isles like Napoleon escaped Elba.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Well Hans is a Soceopath wich means he dous't feel guilt so he dafinitly won't redeem. Personaly I could also see that part about an army happinging.

      dude i know this is an old post but learn some spelling man! is something wrong with your autocorrect or sumthin?

        Loading editor
    • Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Well Hans is a Soceopath wich means he dous't feel guilt so he dafinitly won't redeem. Personaly I could also see that part about an army happinging.

      dude i know this is an old post but learn some spelling man! is something wrong with your autocorrect or sumthin?

      He tends to misspell things.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Well Hans is a Soceopath wich means he dous't feel guilt so he dafinitly won't redeem. Personaly I could also see that part about an army happinging.
      dude i know this is an old post but learn some spelling man! is something wrong with your autocorrect or sumthin?
      He tends to misspell things.

      I do?

        Loading editor
    • To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Well Hans is a Soceopath wich means he dous't feel guilt so he dafinitly won't redeem. Personaly I could also see that part about an army happinging.
      dude i know this is an old post but learn some spelling man! is something wrong with your autocorrect or sumthin?
      He tends to misspell things.

      I do?

      You misspell things a lot.

        Loading editor
    • Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.

      Hans is a very great man.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.

      How?

        Loading editor
    • Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.

      How?

      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.

      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

        Loading editor
    • K this will be long, bear with me please.

      Yes, I think it's fairly certain Hans is coming back and will be redeemed to some measure. There are lots of signs that point towards it;

      - you have Santino Fontana in an interview (from way before Frozen 2 was confirmed) mentioning the Disney writers have told him "No no, we have an idea, we want to bring you back and redeem you" ( link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRApwIY98F4 )

      - there's A Frozen Heart, the upcoming book giving insight into Hans' backstory and thoughts, and based on the 35-page excerpt already available from the Disney Press website ( http://books.disney.com/book/a-frozen-heart/ ) it portrays Hans in a very sympathetic light, as a poorly treated young man with a horrible childhood (neglect and abuse) that the audience is celarly meant to feel sorry for. It's quite rare for Disney to give this sort of treatment or tragic backstory for their supposed villains, it seems like they're starting to change the way the audience views Hans.

      It also proves that no, Disney does not mean Hans to be just a one-dimensional 100% evil character whose only purpose was to be a bad guy in Frozen 1 and nothing more. On the contrary! Disney wants the audience to start sympathising with him now, feeling sorry for him.

      - also Hans was included in the short Frozen Fever, where they even included a detailed map showing where the Southern Isles are and what's going on with Hans, proving that he's not dead. Why waste precious seconds into giving the audience this new canon infromation if they wouldn't mean to return to the Southern Isles in later installments?

      - also Hans being reduced to comic relief in the Frozen Fever would indicate that he def won't be the "main villain" in any future Frozen films. It'd be very difficult to see him as a serious threat after poop gags - and at the same time, it fulfills the audience's need to see him get what he deserves, which might make it easier for them to accept him being redeemed somewhat in the future. If he'd be redeemed just like that, *poof*, it'd feel wrong, but after forced manual labour for a year or 2? Not so impossible.

      - they never went full villain with Hans, but instead kept him as this grey ambivalent character. He doesn't have a "kick the dog" moment but instead is shown being very kind and understanding and caring to animals and the little people, takes good care of Arendelle's citizens, appears to be a good ruler, professes an apprently genuine desire to be the Hero who will save Arendelle in his goddamn villain monologue, doesn't actively try to kill Anna and saves Elsa's life in the ice palace (you know it's true, it would have been more effective to just not interfere and let her get shot if he'd want her dead) and only tries to kill her after she's revealed she can't control the winter and the only way to end the curse seems to be to end her. Also when he tries to decapitate Elsa he's under the impression that she's killed Anna on purpose. Also tragic backstory etc. All this ambivalence has led to Hans being called one of the lamest Disney villains ever - and it's true, he's not a good classic true evil Disney villain at all. So why did they do that? They could easily have changed the way he behaves after the reveal, put some properly evil stuff in his mouth, have him declare he'll drive Arendelle to ruin etc, have him hit or actively try to kill Anna, have him convince the dignitaries to give him the power instead of them telling him "Arendelle looks to you" etc, but they chose not to. Personally, I think it's because they were playing with the thought of eventually bringing him back already then.

      - after a long time of having almost no Hans Merchandise at all, he's starting to feature in things. There's a new exclusive limited edition Designer Doll set with him and Elsa coming for sale at the D23 expo in California in August, for example.

      - Santino Fontana has favorited a tweet of Jen Lee's where she talks about writing the script for Frozen 2. It's just speculative, but still. Also from different interviews and sources etc you get the feeling that the creators rather like him (for example, this post; notice the heart next to him (him being from Spain is obv an inside office joke) http://mickeyandcompany.tumblr.com/post/101899527241/runningracingdancingchasing-frozenmemes ) -  also Jen Lee has been quoted in many interviews stating that he finds Hans "interesting"


      So it really doesn't look like they're phasing him out of the franchise, quite the opposite. They're not even keeping him a full villain, based on A Frozen Heart. They're bringing in new stuff, putting a lot of effort into telling his side of things etc. Why go through all this trouble now, if they wouldn't intend to bring him back and aim to change how the audience sees him?

        Loading editor
    • And then, on the usual arguments against Hans being redeemed:

      Claiming that he can't be redeemed because "what about the children, think of the message it would send" is ridiculous. A black and white message of "people can never change or turn their life around, and no-one ever deserves or gets second chances no matter what, if you mess up once you're forever an evil villain and that's it" is also a horrible message to teach kids. Life isn't like that, people aren't 100% good or 100% bad. Change can happen. It's frankly ridiculous so many people are actually trying to argue that teaching kids about mercy, forgiveness, regret and seeing the error of one's past mistakes, redeeming oneself and atoning to those one has hurt is wrong and Disney shouldn't do that, I mean what the heck. 

      Besides, Frozen itself went directly against that - remember how everyone just forgave Elsa for freezing the entire kingdom, not speaking to Anna for all those years, freezing her heart, sending Marshmallow after her and later her own men etc? She felt bad about it, so all is forgiven. OK, you can claim that "she didn't mean to do any of that", but it's still very serious stuff. And Anna ruined Elsa's coronation and forced her to flee in disgrace, actually causing the entire disaster - well, she was forgiven just like that too, just because she went after Elsa and said whoops sorry. Sure, she didn't know she'd freeze the kingdom but she DID know she was completely ruining Elsa's coronation - a historically important event for Arendelle, affecting their reputation with other countries and most likely the most important day in Elsa's life - by causing a huge scandal with her tantrum. It's comparable to a president's daughter throwing a hissy fit on the stage over not being allowed to stay out with her boyfriend during the victory speech on election night, when the tv cameras of the entire world are on the new leader and their family. Except worse, because Anna is born into royalty and really should know better.

      The core message in Frozen is about turning fresh pages and getting second changes and saying goodbye to the pain and mistakes of the past. That can extend to Hans as well.

      Also, stating as a fact that Hans is a full sociopath is laughable. He's not a full-blown sociopath, that's just fans over-interpreting things and coming up with headcanons. He's shown caring for people, animals etc, he's shown feeling sympathy, shock and sadness over Elsa's  and  Anna'sfates when he learns that they'll inevitably die - it's short, but it's there. They animated him showing empathy. There wasn't much time to show him feeling regret, but if they put that in Frozen 2 then boom, it's proven he's def not a sociopath, simple as that.

      Fine, Jen Lee has said that he's sociopathic - well, she's also referred to her own "sociopathic mind" in the same context, and no-one is calling her a sociopath. She throws that word around a bit too liberally, that's all. And besides, claiming that "he can't  be redeemed" is ridiculous. He can sprout wings or develop fire powers if the creators decide it. Of course he can be redeemed, it's Disney where the power of love and kindness overpowers everything, even death.


      However, I hope they won't go full *badabing! You're a good guy!* redemption with him, as it'd feel forced and fake and frankly I don't think he's a Prince Goldheart character at all. He's too ambiguous and definitely has a massive douchebag side to him, as everyone knows. But he could and most likely will be redeemed a little, into a somewhat likeable anti-hero who still remains a dick. Like Loki, or something.

        Loading editor
    • Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.

      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.

      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.

      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

        Loading editor
    • Tyrannosaurus.Lex
      Tyrannosaurus.Lex removed this reply because:
      its my effin' comment
      22:09, June 17, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • Vilivi wrote:
      And then, on the usual arguments against Hans being redeemed:

      Claiming that he can't be redeemed because "what about the children, think of the message it would send" is ridiculous. A black and white message of "people can never change or turn their life around, and no-one ever deserves or gets second chances no matter what, if you mess up once you're forever an evil villain and that's it" is also a horrible message to teach kids. Life isn't like that, people aren't 100% good or 100% bad. Change can happen. It's frankly ridiculous so many people are actually trying to argue that teaching kids about mercy, forgiveness, regret and seeing the error of one's past mistakes, redeeming oneself and atoning to those one has hurt is wrong and Disney shouldn't do that, I mean what the heck. 

      Besides, Frozen itself went directly against that - remember how everyone just forgave Elsa for freezing the entire kingdom, not speaking to Anna for all those years, freezing her heart, sending Marshmallow after her and later her own men etc? She felt bad about it, so all is forgiven. OK, you can claim that "she didn't mean to do any of that", but it's still very serious stuff. And Anna ruined Elsa's coronation and forced her to flee in disgrace, actually causing the entire disaster - well, she was forgiven just like that too, just because she went after Elsa and said whoops sorry. Sure, she didn't know she'd freeze the kingdom but she DID know she was completely ruining Elsa's coronation - a historically important event for Arendelle, affecting their reputation with other countries and most likely the most important day in Elsa's life - by causing a huge scandal with her tantrum. It's comparable to a president's daughter throwing a hissy fit on the stage over not being allowed to stay out with her boyfriend during the victory speech on election night, when the tv cameras of the entire world are on the new leader and their family. Except worse, because Anna is born into royalty and really should know better.

      The core message in Frozen is about turning fresh pages and getting second changes and saying goodbye to the pain and mistakes of the past. That can extend to Hans as well.

      Also, stating as a fact that Hans is a full sociopath is laughable. He's not a full-blown sociopath, that's just fans over-interpreting things and coming up with headcanons. He's shown caring for people, animals etc, he's shown feeling sympathy, shock and sadness over Elsa's  and  Anna'sfates when he learns that they'll inevitably die - it's short, but it's there. They animated him showing empathy. There wasn't much time to show him feeling regret, but if they put that in Frozen 2 then boom, it's proven he's def not a sociopath, simple as that.

      Fine, Jen Lee has said that he's sociopathic - well, she's also referred to her own "sociopathic mind" in the same context, and no-one is calling her a sociopath. She throws that word around a bit too liberally, that's all. And besides, claiming that "he can't  be redeemed" is ridiculous. He can sprout wings or develop fire powers if the creators decide it. Of course he can be redeemed, it's Disney where the power of love and kindness overpowers everything, even death.


      However, I hope they won't go full *badabing! You're a good guy!* redemption with him, as it'd feel forced and fake and frankly I don't think he's a Prince Goldheart character at all. He's too ambiguous and definitely has a massive douchebag side to him, as everyone knows. But he could and most likely will be redeemed a little, into a somewhat likeable anti-hero who still remains a dick. Like Loki, or something.

      omfg, THANK you! FINALLY! someone without a complete black and white p.o.v.  no offense, napoleon fanatic, but you were starting to drive me ballistic

        Loading editor
    • Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.

      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.

      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.

        Loading editor
    • Tyrannosaurus.Lex
      Tyrannosaurus.Lex removed this reply because:
      ugggggggggggggh
      00:15, June 18, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.

      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.

      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.

      Looks like a lame person and if you say he's like Hans then how does that make him a good leader

      Oh and if Hans became king he'd stop being nice and become even more of a ***** then he already is

        Loading editor
    • Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.

      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.

      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.

      Looks like a lame person and if you say he's like Hans then how does that make him a good leader

      Oh and if Hans became king he'd stop being nice and become even more of a ***** then he already is

      Napoleon greatly helped the sovereign citizens like Hans would do.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.
      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.
      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.
      Looks like a lame person and if you say he's like Hans then how does that make him a good leader

      Oh and if Hans became king he'd stop being nice and become even more of a ***** then he already is

      Napoleon greatly helped the sovereign citizens like Hans would do.

      ENOUGH ABOUT NAPOLEON MAN. Can't you just accept they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? I don't know how you don't see this, Hans is definitely more villain than hero, ok? And if you're so concerned about the "good of the kingdom", he didn't even CARE about Arendelle, he just wanted a kingdom of his own. JESUS.

        Loading editor
    • Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.
      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.
      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.
      Looks like a lame person and if you say he's like Hans then how does that make him a good leader

      Oh and if Hans became king he'd stop being nice and become even more of a ***** then he already is

      Napoleon greatly helped the sovereign citizens like Hans would do.

      ENOUGH ABOUT NAPOLEON MAN. Can't you just accept they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? I don't know how you don't see this, Hans is definitely more villain than hero, ok? And if you're so concerned about the "good of the kingdom", he didn't even CARE about Arendelle, he just wanted a kingdom of his own. JESUS.

      Hans is a lot like the Emperor. I admire them both. Napoleon is my hero. Hans is a villain with good intentions. Hans did care about the citizens. He provided them with food and blankets. He also wanted to be the hero who saved them.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:


      Periwinkle123 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:


      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:



      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.
      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.
      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.
      Looks like a lame person and if you say he's like Hans then how does that make him a good leader

      Oh and if Hans became king he'd stop being nice and become even more of a ***** then he already is

      Napoleon greatly helped the sovereign citizens like Hans would do.
      ENOUGH ABOUT NAPOLEON MAN. Can't you just accept they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? I don't know how you don't see this, Hans is definitely more villain than hero, ok? And if you're so concerned about the "good of the kingdom", he didn't even CARE about Arendelle, he just wanted a kingdom of his own. JESUS.
      Hans is a lot like the Emperor. I admire them both. Napoleon is my hero. Hans is a villain with good intentions. Hans did care about the citizens. He provided them with food and blankets. He also wanted to be the hero who saved them.

      Ok, hold up.

      Sweetheart, sorry to burst your bubble, when he did all that, he was just trying to make a good impression on the citizens. Kay? He was trying to get them to like him so that "when" the sisters died, they would make him the king (I mean, obviously, cause as the princess's fianceè he's the regent, so it's law, but they could overthrow him if they don't trust him).  

      And when he said, "I will be the hero that saves Arendelle,"  he meant that the citizens would see him as a hero, when really, he was just planning to kill Elsa all along (as in, after he saw that he couldn't marry her into the throne). Honestly, I think you're the only one who didn't get that.

      Are you still in "Hans is a hero" mode, or did you open up your eyes a bit?

        Loading editor
    • Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:


      Periwinkle123 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:


      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:



      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.
      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.
      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.
      Looks like a lame person and if you say he's like Hans then how does that make him a good leader

      Oh and if Hans became king he'd stop being nice and become even more of a ***** then he already is

      Napoleon greatly helped the sovereign citizens like Hans would do.
      ENOUGH ABOUT NAPOLEON MAN. Can't you just accept they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? I don't know how you don't see this, Hans is definitely more villain than hero, ok? And if you're so concerned about the "good of the kingdom", he didn't even CARE about Arendelle, he just wanted a kingdom of his own. JESUS.
      Hans is a lot like the Emperor. I admire them both. Napoleon is my hero. Hans is a villain with good intentions. Hans did care about the citizens. He provided them with food and blankets. He also wanted to be the hero who saved them.

      Ok, hold up.

      Sweetheart, sorry to burst your bubble, when he did all that, he was just trying to make a good impression on the citizens. Kay? He was trying to get them to like him so that "when" the sisters died, they would make him the king (I mean, obviously, cause as the princess's fianceè he's the regent, so it's law, but they could overthrow him if they don't trust him).  

      And when he said, "I will be the hero that saves Arendelle,"  he meant that the citizens would see him as a hero, when really, he was just planning to kill Elsa all along (as in, after he saw that he couldn't marry her into the throne). Honestly, I think you're the only one who didn't get that.

      Are you still in "Hans is a hero" mode, or did you open up your eyes a bit?

      I believe Hans genuinely cares about the citizens. I do not believe he maliciously tried to kill Elsa. Hans is a hero in my eyes.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:


      Periwinkle123 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:


      Alex Ackovska wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:



      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:




      Joseph8 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote: To not get off-topic, I think that Hans' past could be explored. However, I don't think he should be redeemed. What I think is best for his character is to make him into a more complicated Disney villain. He could be a sympathetic character who has emotions and real motives behind his actions, albeit a villainous one. This way, he isn't a typical 2-dimensional villain who has no complexity of any sort. This would show that not all villains are the "Mwhahaha, I'm going to take over the world" type, but instead, can have reasons as to why they chose the path they chose. I don't think Hans should be redeemed, as it would only destroy the original purpose of his character. If anything, I think redeeming him would only ruin the second movie. People think that he's either completely bad, or completely misunderstood. Why can't we make a villain with a past? That would make an interesting Disney villain, no?

      Hans' past is going to be explored in A Frozen Heart. Hans should be redeemed. He is a great man who deserves victory. He should win his Waterloo. His victory should be similar to this:
      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      Napoleon Total War Waterloo Alternate Ending Outro

      I would like Hans to win his battle of destiny like Napoleon does in this alternate history game.

      A great man? Hans is a Sociopath which means he is incapable of feeling remorse for what he did and theirfor he can't be redeemed. Besides part of the reason the creators of Frozen made Hans was to show kids that you should't trust strangers no matter how friendly they seem, redeeming him would go aganst that and say to kids that they should trust thous who have betrayed and hurt them.
      Hans is a very great man.
      How?
      He cares for the sovereign citizen and puts the citizen first. He carries on the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte. He also shows great military skill when he fights.
      Ok, enough about Napoleon! We get it.

      And maybe Hans could've been a great leader, but not a great person. No great person fakes his feelings in a romantic relationship for power and kills inoccent people, not to mention his fianceè. I don't understand why you think what he did was good.

      He tried to lie, trick, decieve and not to mention murder his way into the throne...sure, it was common back in those days, but c'mon, this is a Disney movie! Besides, even back then, that's not a good thing.

      Elsa was not innocent and Hans had to attempt to kill her to save the nation. It is not murder! Hans also did not directly try to kill Anna in a malicious way. He just sort of left her to be. His duty was to the citizens and the nation. He is also not a liar. He is glorious.
      Dude, Wolf 91 is right he tried to kill Elsa and left Anna to die. As much as I don't like the sisters it still wasn't right for Hans to murder Elsa that doesn't make him a great man and Who the hell is Napoleon?

      Did you even watch the movie?

      I did see the movie. Hans was justified in killing Elsa. It is not murder in that case. Napoleon was the Emperor of France and the greatest leader of all time:[[1]] Hans is a lot like him.
      Looks like a lame person and if you say he's like Hans then how does that make him a good leader

      Oh and if Hans became king he'd stop being nice and become even more of a ***** then he already is

      Napoleon greatly helped the sovereign citizens like Hans would do.
      ENOUGH ABOUT NAPOLEON MAN. Can't you just accept they're COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE? I don't know how you don't see this, Hans is definitely more villain than hero, ok? And if you're so concerned about the "good of the kingdom", he didn't even CARE about Arendelle, he just wanted a kingdom of his own. JESUS.
      Hans is a lot like the Emperor. I admire them both. Napoleon is my hero. Hans is a villain with good intentions. Hans did care about the citizens. He provided them with food and blankets. He also wanted to be the hero who saved them.
      Ok, hold up.

      Sweetheart, sorry to burst your bubble, when he did all that, he was just trying to make a good impression on the citizens. Kay? He was trying to get them to like him so that "when" the sisters died, they would make him the king (I mean, obviously, cause as the princess's fianceè he's the regent, so it's law, but they could overthrow him if they don't trust him).  

      And when he said, "I will be the hero that saves Arendelle,"  he meant that the citizens would see him as a hero, when really, he was just planning to kill Elsa all along (as in, after he saw that he couldn't marry her into the throne). Honestly, I think you're the only one who didn't get that.

      Are you still in "Hans is a hero" mode, or did you open up your eyes a bit?

      I believe Hans genuinely cares about the citizens. I do not believe he maliciously tried to kill Elsa. Hans is a hero in my eyes.

      Ok then. Believe it. I can't stop you. 

        Loading editor
    • Jesus people, limit and edit your quotes, this is painful to read. Every mesage has like 1 line of actual message content and over a metre of various nesting quotes above it.

      When you hit "quote" just delete everything that's not the message you're directly replying to so it doesn't stack up ridiculously, please and thank you. You don't need to drag the entire conversation along with every message in the same conversation

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote: Jesus people, limit and edit your quotes, this is painful to read. Every mesage has like 1 line of actual message content and over a metre of various nesting quotes above it.

      When you hit "quote" just delete everything that's not the message you're directly replying to so it doesn't stack up ridiculously, please and thank you. You don't need to drag the entire conversation along with every message in the same conversation

      Lol, I was thinking the same thing! :D

        Loading editor
    • That's what I was thinking but I'm too lazy to actually make an effort :3

        Loading editor
    • Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

        Loading editor
    • Periwinkle123 wrote: Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

      Hans is a great man because he supports the citizens and will do anything to keep them safe.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

      Hans is a great man because he supports the citizens and will do anything to keep them safe.

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

      Hans is a great man because he supports the citizens and will do anything to keep them safe.

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      I would gladly take his side. I believe he genuinely cares about the common citizen.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

      Hans is a great man because he supports the citizens and will do anything to keep them safe.
      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.
      I would gladly take his side. I believe he genuinely cares about the common citizen.

      If thier's one thing I know about Soceopaths it's that they care only for them selfs. Also of corse he cared for the people of Arendelle during the winter, he can't rule Arendelle if everyone in the country freezes to detath

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

      Hans is a great man because he supports the citizens and will do anything to keep them safe.
      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.
      I would gladly take his side. I believe he genuinely cares about the common citizen.

      If thier's one thing I know about Soceopaths it's that they care only for them selfs. Also of corse he cared for the people of Arendelle during the winter, he can't rule Arendelle if everyone in the country freezes to detath.

        Loading editor
    • This is actually such a stupid conversation.

        Loading editor
    • Alex Ackovska wrote: This is actually such a stupid conversation.

      ^Somebody PLEASE give this person a reward

      I know but, what can I do? Can't stop this guy from saying Hans is a great man (even though he isn't)

        Loading editor
    • Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote: This is actually such a stupid conversation.

      ^Somebody PLEASE give this person a reward

      I know but, what can I do? Can't stop this guy from saying Hans is a great man (even though he isn't)

      Thanks :)

      Joey, seriously, though I find your arguements amusing and slightly entertaining, I don't take them seriously and sometimes think you need to see a pshyciatrist. Sorry, don't mean to offend though I probably am, I'm just brutally honest...

        Loading editor
    • Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote: This is actually such a stupid conversation.

      ^Somebody PLEASE give this person a reward

      I know but, what can I do? Can't stop this guy from saying Hans is a great man (even though he isn't)

      Thanks :)

      Joey, seriously, though I find your arguements amusing and slightly entertaining, I don't take them seriously and sometimes think you need to see a pshyciatrist. Sorry, don't mean to offend though I probably am, I'm just brutally honest...

      I already see a psychiatrist.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote:

      Alex Ackovska wrote: This is actually such a stupid conversation.

      ^Somebody PLEASE give this person a reward

      I know but, what can I do? Can't stop this guy from saying Hans is a great man (even though he isn't)

      Thanks :)

      Joey, seriously, though I find your arguements amusing and slightly entertaining, I don't take them seriously and sometimes think you need to see a pshyciatrist. Sorry, don't mean to offend though I probably am, I'm just brutally honest...

      I already see a psychiatrist.

      ......ok cool. nevermind.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring

      If Hans was good and careing he would't have menipulated Anna and left her to die and he would't have hurt Elsa by telling her that Anna was dead and then tryed to kill Elsa.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Vilivi wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring
      If Hans was good and careing he would't have menipulated Anna and left her to die and he would't have hurt Elsa by telling her that Anna was dead and then tryed to kill Elsa.

      He was attempting to do good by killing Elsa.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Vilivi wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring
      If Hans was good and careing he would't have menipulated Anna and left her to die and he would't have hurt Elsa by telling her that Anna was dead and then tryed to kill Elsa.

      He was attempting to do good by killing Elsa.

      How can killing Elsa be good?

        Loading editor
    • Tyrannoraptor124 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Vilivi wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring
      If Hans was good and careing he would't have menipulated Anna and left her to die and he would't have hurt Elsa by telling her that Anna was dead and then tryed to kill Elsa.
      He was attempting to do good by killing Elsa.
      How can killing Elsa be good?

      It was to save the nation from destruction.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      Tyrannoraptor124 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Vilivi wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring
      If Hans was good and careing he would't have menipulated Anna and left her to die and he would't have hurt Elsa by telling her that Anna was dead and then tryed to kill Elsa.
      He was attempting to do good by killing Elsa.
      How can killing Elsa be good?
      It was to save the nation from destruction.

      Oh please Hans just wanted Elsa dead so he can take the thrown and what about how he menipulated Anna and then left her for dead.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Joseph8 wrote:
      Tyrannoraptor124 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Vilivi wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring
      If Hans was good and careing he would't have menipulated Anna and left her to die and he would't have hurt Elsa by telling her that Anna was dead and then tryed to kill Elsa.
      He was attempting to do good by killing Elsa.
      How can killing Elsa be good?
      It was to save the nation from destruction.
      Oh please Hans just wanted Elsa dead so he can take the thrown and what about how he menipulated Anna and then left her for dead.

      Hans manipulated Anna so he could become King. Napoleon did the same thing with the French Revolution. He left Anna in the room because he couldn't do anything about her.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Joseph8 wrote:
      Tyrannoraptor124 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:



      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Vilivi wrote:
      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.

      That's not proven by the movie though, it's just your headcanon. There's nothing solid to show either way about his true feelings about the smallfolk, just that his actions are good and caring
      If Hans was good and careing he would't have menipulated Anna and left her to die and he would't have hurt Elsa by telling her that Anna was dead and then tryed to kill Elsa.
      He was attempting to do good by killing Elsa.
      How can killing Elsa be good?
      It was to save the nation from destruction.
      Oh please Hans just wanted Elsa dead so he can take the thrown and what about how he menipulated Anna and then left her for dead.
      Hans manipulated Anna so he could become King. Napoleon did the same thing with the French Revolution. He left Anna in the room because he couldn't do anything about her.

      Then Napoleon did a bad thing. He could have left the fire on so she could live longer, He could ave brought her to the others so they can all plan a way to help her and he could have told Elsa that Anna was alive so she can try to help her. Also was taunting her while she was dieing naccisary I would say no.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

      Hans is a great man because he supports the citizens and will do anything to keep them safe.
      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.
      I would gladly take his side. I believe he genuinely cares about the common citizen.

      If thier's one thing I know about Soceopaths it's that they care only for them selfs. Also of corse he cared for the people of Arendelle during the winter, he can't rule Arendelle if everyone in the country freezes to detath.

      Did Kefka Palazzo care about whether he'd rule the world upon everyone in it dying when he, I don't know, blew up the World of Balance in Final Fantasy VI? No. He clearly cared only for himself, he didn't care at ALL about anyone else, and he even blew up the world even when it would have been more pragmatic to just rule it, and continued the destruction even after the World of Ruin was formed to satisfy his sick desires. And unlike Hans, Kefka is basically the textbook definition of a sociopath, just like the Joker even (who Kefka was largely similar to in any case).

      Oh, and you can also add in Scar to the mix as well: Scar didn't attempt to buy people's loyalty by pretending to be nice. Even when he DID offer a bribe to the Hyenas to help him murder Mufasa, it's pretty obvious he was trying to use them. Oh, and also Ursula from The Little Mermaid.

      And BTW, Hans' voice actor already confirmed he's going to be redeemed in the sequel, so just drop it.

        Loading editor
    • Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Just because they redeem one man doesn't mean you're going to screw up the message. Especially when that message has been used for quite a few Disney films since... what? Snow White and the Seven Dwarves?

      Besides, there have been far worse instances in Disney history of them actually screwing up that message, like Woolverton deciding to just make Belle into a Simone de Beauvoir-type feminist who hated raising a family and wrote her independence in a way that was more befitting of an arrogant spoiled brat, and then for some reason completely failing to give the triplets, the closest thing Belle has to actual foils, any actual internal ugliness beyond just happening to crush on the main villain Gaston, and this is despite the fact that in the original tale, Belle had sisters who were extremely wicked on the inside and were effectively the main villains over Gaston (heck, Gaston didn't even exist in the original tale, not to mention he was only characterized the way he was because Woolverton felt particularly sour about her ex-husbands).

        Loading editor
    • Um...I'm pretty sure Santino Fontana said it was a possibility, which is far from an actual confirmation.

      That's not to say I don't want to see it happen; I just don't want to get my hopes up.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Ugh, How the hell is Hans a great man?

      This is stupid and the fact that you say Frozen is the best movie makes it even more stupid like Anna and Elsa are the main characters Hans barely gets any screen time thought out the ENTIRE damn movie

      Hans sucks for a Disney Villain Yokai was better than him

      Hans is a great man because he supports the citizens and will do anything to keep them safe.
      Only so he can convince them to take his side for when he killed Elsa and Anna.
      I would gladly take his side. I believe he genuinely cares about the common citizen.
      If thier's one thing I know about Soceopaths it's that they care only for them selfs. Also of corse he cared for the people of Arendelle during the winter, he can't rule Arendelle if everyone in the country freezes to detath.
      Did Kefka Palazzo care about whether he'd rule the world upon everyone in it dying when he, I don't know, blew up the World of Balance in Final Fantasy VI? No. He clearly cared only for himself, he didn't care at ALL about anyone else, and he even blew up the world even when it would have been more pragmatic to just rule it, and continued the destruction even after the World of Ruin was formed to satisfy his sick desires. And unlike Hans, Kefka is basically the textbook definition of a sociopath, just like the Joker even (who Kefka was largely similar to in any case).

      Oh, and you can also add in Scar to the mix as well: Scar didn't attempt to buy people's loyalty by pretending to be nice. Even when he DID offer a bribe to the Hyenas to help him murder Mufasa, it's pretty obvious he was trying to use them. Oh, and also Ursula from The Little Mermaid.

      And BTW, Hans' voice actor already confirmed he's going to be redeemed in the sequel, so just drop it.

      Ok I don't play Final Fantasy VI (or any video game for that matter) So I have no clue what your talking about with that.

      Yes but remamber Mufasa was dead and Simba was gone wich means thier was no one elsa who could have teken the thrown from Scar, everyone had no choice but to have him as king. But Hans did have to win support from the people cause Elsa and Anna were also options to be in charge. I have't seen the Little Mermaid since I was at least 5, I am currantly 19 so whatever I saw in that movie I've pretty much forgot.

      Their are users on this wiki who say Disney tends to ruin their sequals, If Disney redeems Hans then thous users will be proven right.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Just because they redeem one man doesn't mean you're going to screw up the message. Especially when that message has been used for quite a few Disney films since... what? Snow White and the Seven Dwarves?

      Besides, there have been far worse instances in Disney history of them actually screwing up that message, like Woolverton deciding to just make Belle into a Simone de Beauvoir-type feminist who hated raising a family and wrote her independence in a way that was more befitting of an arrogant spoiled brat, and then for some reason completely failing to give the triplets, the closest thing Belle has to actual foils, any actual internal ugliness beyond just happening to crush on the main villain Gaston, and this is despite the fact that in the original tale, Belle had sisters who were extremely wicked on the inside and were effectively the main villains over Gaston (heck, Gaston didn't even exist in the original tale, not to mention he was only characterized the way he was because Woolverton felt particularly sour about her ex-husbands).

      Periwinkle is right, if they redeem Hans thier basicly teaching kids to trust bad people and that is not a good message. Remamber the saying "Fool me ounce, sham on You, Fool me twice, shame on Me"

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Just because they redeem one man doesn't mean you're going to screw up the message. Especially when that message has been used for quite a few Disney films since... what? Snow White and the Seven Dwarves?

      Besides, there have been far worse instances in Disney history of them actually screwing up that message, like Woolverton deciding to just make Belle into a Simone de Beauvoir-type feminist who hated raising a family and wrote her independence in a way that was more befitting of an arrogant spoiled brat, and then for some reason completely failing to give the triplets, the closest thing Belle has to actual foils, any actual internal ugliness beyond just happening to crush on the main villain Gaston, and this is despite the fact that in the original tale, Belle had sisters who were extremely wicked on the inside and were effectively the main villains over Gaston (heck, Gaston didn't even exist in the original tale, not to mention he was only characterized the way he was because Woolverton felt particularly sour about her ex-husbands).

      Periwinkle is right, if they redeem Hans thier basicly teaching kids to trust bad people and that is not a good message. Remamber the saying "Fool me ounce, sham on You, Fool me twice, shame on Me"

      They've already got Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, and, heck, even Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid pushing that message anyways. It won't be a loss if Frozen goes back on that.

      Besides, wouldn't teaching the concept of forgiveness be an even better message?

        Loading editor
    • Remamber the saying "Fool me ounce, sham on You, Fool me twice, shame on Me."

      I've never heard about fooling ounce. And who said anything about a sham?

        Loading editor
    • Tyrannoraptor124 wrote:

      How can killing Elsa be good?

      At the time, it seemed that the only way to end the cursed winter that threatened to kill almost everyone ("It's getting colder by the minute. If we don't do something soon, we'll all freeze to death") was to kill Elsa. Hans had begged her to end the winter before and she'd said that she couldn't, so she couldn't do anything about it. Also her going away wouldn't work either, she already escaped to the North Mountain but was still so powerful she froze everything.

      Also, when Anna shows up, on death's door, her skin ice and hair turned white and almost too weak to move, she told Hans that "Elsa struck me with her powers". Anna didn't say it was an accident, just that Elsa cursed her. When Hans asks, shocked, how it's possible since Anna had said Elsa would never hurt her, Anna just says that "I was wrong" - she doesn't say that Elsa didn't mean to do it. So it all gives the impression that Elsa intentionally cursed her own sister, her only living family member, to death.

      So, for Hans, it seems that Elsa has to die for the kingdom to be saved and she's a dangerous, ruthless witch who's just murdered her own sister to boot. Also he saw her attack the Weselton thugs at the ice palace as well as fought Marshmallow, who attacked the Arendelle guards (Elsa's own men) without provocation and with intent to kill, which Elsa saw and just shut the door, letting her creation keep attacking her subjects.

      Of course, the viewer knows how things are, but the characters in the film do not. This is also why everyone, the dignitaries, the soldiers, everyone supports Hans and him condemning Elsa to death, because they agree it's the best thing to do.

      And naturally we all know Hans was plotting to seize power anyway, so it's not like "ooh he's actually good at heart and meant no harm" - but it's a clever move from Disney to write it like this, where excecuting Elsa did seem for Hans to be the heroic, right thing to do, the way to save the kingdom and be the hero. Regardless of his villainy, Disney intentionally wrote this perspective and misunderstanding in - it would have been very easy for them to have Anna say "she didn't mean to" and have Hans go after Elsa anyway, but no, they wanted to write it like this.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Just because they redeem one man doesn't mean you're going to screw up the message. Especially when that message has been used for quite a few Disney films since... what? Snow White and the Seven Dwarves?

      Besides, there have been far worse instances in Disney history of them actually screwing up that message, like Woolverton deciding to just make Belle into a Simone de Beauvoir-type feminist who hated raising a family and wrote her independence in a way that was more befitting of an arrogant spoiled brat, and then for some reason completely failing to give the triplets, the closest thing Belle has to actual foils, any actual internal ugliness beyond just happening to crush on the main villain Gaston, and this is despite the fact that in the original tale, Belle had sisters who were extremely wicked on the inside and were effectively the main villains over Gaston (heck, Gaston didn't even exist in the original tale, not to mention he was only characterized the way he was because Woolverton felt particularly sour about her ex-husbands).

      Periwinkle is right, if they redeem Hans thier basicly teaching kids to trust bad people and that is not a good message. Remamber the saying "Fool me ounce, sham on You, Fool me twice, shame on Me"
      They've already got Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, and, heck, even Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid pushing that message anyways. It won't be a loss if Frozen goes back on that.

      Besides, wouldn't teaching the concept of forgiveness be an even better message?

      Ok I have't seen thous other Disney movies for a very very long time so I don't realy know what message they send but you have to remamber Frozen is a more popular wich means it may spreed it's message more. Also forgiveness is a good message to teach but thier is still such a thing as unforgivibal (example of unforgivibal things include murder, attamted murder, sex crimes, hate crimes, kidnapping and possibly stalking). Also I personaly think forgivness should be for thous who regrate their action but Hans dous't regrate what he did, remorse is an emotion that Soceopath's don't feel. Should we forgive Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin. Children should be taught to forgive but they should also be taught to be wary of dangours people.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:
      Tyrannoraptor124 wrote:

      How can killing Elsa be good?

      At the time, it seemed that the only way to end the cursed winter that threatened to kill almost everyone ("It's getting colder by the minute. If we don't do something soon, we'll all freeze to death") was to kill Elsa. Hans had begged her to end the winter before and she'd said that she couldn't, so she couldn't do anything about it. Also her going away wouldn't work either, she already escaped to the North Mountain but was still so powerful she froze everything.

      Also, when Anna shows up, on death's door, her skin ice and hair turned white and almost too weak to move, she told Hans that "Elsa struck me with her powers". Anna didn't say it was an accident, just that Elsa cursed her. When Hans asks, shocked, how it's possible since Anna had said Elsa would never hurt her, Anna just says that "I was wrong" - she doesn't say that Elsa didn't mean to do it. So it all gives the impression that Elsa intentionally cursed her own sister, her only living family member, to death.

      So, for Hans, it seems that Elsa has to die for the kingdom to be saved and she's a dangerous, ruthless witch who's just murdered her own sister to boot. Also he saw her attack the Weselton thugs at the ice palace as well as fought Marshmallow, who attacked the Arendelle guards (Elsa's own men) without provocation and with intent to kill, which Elsa saw and just shut the door, letting her creation keep attacking her subjects.

      Of course, the viewer knows how things are, but the characters in the film do not. This is also why everyone, the dignitaries, the soldiers, everyone supports Hans and him condemning Elsa to death, because they agree it's the best thing to do.

      And naturally we all know Hans was plotting to seize power anyway, so it's not like "ooh he's actually good at heart and meant no harm" - but it's a clever move from Disney to write it like this, where excecuting Elsa did seem for Hans to be the heroic, right thing to do, the way to save the kingdom and be the hero. Regardless of his villainy, Disney intentionally wrote this perspective and misunderstanding in - it would have been very easy for them to have Anna say "she didn't mean to" and have Hans go after Elsa anyway, but no, they wanted to write it like this.

      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Periwinkle123 wrote: Hans shouldn't be redeemed he should stay a villain (even though he was the last minute villain) because you're screwing up a message that was sent to kids that said, people arnt always good

      Just because they redeem one man doesn't mean you're going to screw up the message. Especially when that message has been used for quite a few Disney films since... what? Snow White and the Seven Dwarves?

      Besides, there have been far worse instances in Disney history of them actually screwing up that message, like Woolverton deciding to just make Belle into a Simone de Beauvoir-type feminist who hated raising a family and wrote her independence in a way that was more befitting of an arrogant spoiled brat, and then for some reason completely failing to give the triplets, the closest thing Belle has to actual foils, any actual internal ugliness beyond just happening to crush on the main villain Gaston, and this is despite the fact that in the original tale, Belle had sisters who were extremely wicked on the inside and were effectively the main villains over Gaston (heck, Gaston didn't even exist in the original tale, not to mention he was only characterized the way he was because Woolverton felt particularly sour about her ex-husbands).

      Periwinkle is right, if they redeem Hans thier basicly teaching kids to trust bad people and that is not a good message. Remamber the saying "Fool me ounce, sham on You, Fool me twice, shame on Me"
      They've already got Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, and, heck, even Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid pushing that message anyways. It won't be a loss if Frozen goes back on that.

      Besides, wouldn't teaching the concept of forgiveness be an even better message?

      Ok I have't seen thous other Disney movies for a very very long time so I don't realy know what message they send but you have to remamber Frozen is a more popular wich means it may spreed it's message more. Also forgiveness is a good message to teach but thier is still such a thing as unforgivibal (example of unforgivibal things include murder, attamted murder, sex crimes, hate crimes, kidnapping and possibly stalking). Also I personaly think forgivness should be for thous who regrate their action but Hans dous't regrate what he did, remorse is an emotion that Soceopath's don't feel. Should we forgive Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin. Children should be taught to forgive but they should also be taught to be wary of dangours people.

      I wouldn't be so sure Frozen's more popular than at least The Little Mermaid. Don't forget it has ArielCon, a biannual convention dedicated to that movie, and back in 2008 it actually had a huge sale of TLM-related merchandise that wasn't even part of the Disney Princess franchise at Toys R Us.

      And honestly, Beauty and the Beast was all about not judging a book by its cover, same with Snow White.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:
      Tyrannoraptor124 wrote:

      How can killing Elsa be good?

      At the time, it seemed that the only way to end the cursed winter that threatened to kill almost everyone ("It's getting colder by the minute. If we don't do something soon, we'll all freeze to death") was to kill Elsa. Hans had begged her to end the winter before and she'd said that she couldn't, so she couldn't do anything about it. Also her going away wouldn't work either, she already escaped to the North Mountain but was still so powerful she froze everything.

      Also, when Anna shows up, on death's door, her skin ice and hair turned white and almost too weak to move, she told Hans that "Elsa struck me with her powers". Anna didn't say it was an accident, just that Elsa cursed her. When Hans asks, shocked, how it's possible since Anna had said Elsa would never hurt her, Anna just says that "I was wrong" - she doesn't say that Elsa didn't mean to do it. So it all gives the impression that Elsa intentionally cursed her own sister, her only living family member, to death.

      So, for Hans, it seems that Elsa has to die for the kingdom to be saved and she's a dangerous, ruthless witch who's just murdered her own sister to boot. Also he saw her attack the Weselton thugs at the ice palace as well as fought Marshmallow, who attacked the Arendelle guards (Elsa's own men) without provocation and with intent to kill, which Elsa saw and just shut the door, letting her creation keep attacking her subjects.

      Of course, the viewer knows how things are, but the characters in the film do not. This is also why everyone, the dignitaries, the soldiers, everyone supports Hans and him condemning Elsa to death, because they agree it's the best thing to do.

      And naturally we all know Hans was plotting to seize power anyway, so it's not like "ooh he's actually good at heart and meant no harm" - but it's a clever move from Disney to write it like this, where excecuting Elsa did seem for Hans to be the heroic, right thing to do, the way to save the kingdom and be the hero. Regardless of his villainy, Disney intentionally wrote this perspective and misunderstanding in - it would have been very easy for them to have Anna say "she didn't mean to" and have Hans go after Elsa anyway, but no, they wanted to write it like this.

      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      You going to call Belle a sociopath, then? Don't forget, she was the reason Beast was nearly killed by Gaston. It's obvious she knew Gaston well enough to know he would most likely get jealous of her if he got even the slightest hint that she loved Beast more than him. Not to mention she also deduced just a few moments beforehand that Gaston is the kind of guy who would go as far as to blackmail a person to get what he wants. And because of her exposing the Beast to a congregated mob (who she definitely would know would not take differences well, heck, probably wouldn't even take Beast well at first impression anyways, and probably would still believe he's a danger to the community regardless of what she or Gaston would have to say about it), she was at the very least an accessory to murder, and if we take into account what would have happened to the villagers, she would probably be an accessory to mass-murder as well.

      Lastly, to address Kefka and his sociopathy, here's the scene where he basically blows up the world:

      Kefka here fits the definition of a sociopath far better than Hans, to be honest. In fact, Gestahl even explicitly warns him that it will blow up the world they're trying to conquer, and Kefka makes clear he doesn't give a care about whether his actions will destroy the world or if there will be anyone left to rule over.

      Also here:

      In this, he makes clear he finds the act of destroying things far more fun than simply ruling over them, and this is when he gets REALLY serious about destroying the world.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Hans cared more about the throne than he did for Anna at the time. His sights were on usurping the throne and proving himself to his family, so he left Anna to freeze to death as his plan was going accordingly. That's not to say that he didn't feel bad for leaving Anna in the library. Of course, we don't know his exact thoughts on this situation, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care about Anna in this instance.

        Loading editor
    • Jjuser wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Hans cared more about the throne than he did for Anna at the time. His sights were on usurping the throne and proving himself to his family, so he left Anna to freeze to death as his plan was going accordingly. That's not to say that he didn't feel bad for leaving Anna in the library. Of course, we don't know his exact thoughts on this situation, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care about Anna in this instance.

      Only a heartless soceopath or a crule sadist would leave someone to die and then use thier death to trick people into supporting him when he tryed to kill someone that person greatly cared for (And Hans is both).

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Hans cared more about the throne than he did for Anna at the time. His sights were on usurping the throne and proving himself to his family, so he left Anna to freeze to death as his plan was going accordingly. That's not to say that he didn't feel bad for leaving Anna in the library. Of course, we don't know his exact thoughts on this situation, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care about Anna in this instance.

      Only a heartless soceopath or a crule sadist would leave someone to die and then use thier death to trick people into supporting him when he tryed to kill someone that person greatly cared for (And Hans is both).

      Not really, some heartless sociopaths or cruel sadists actually go as far as to stay until the very moment they die (usually by their hands), often torturing them, before doing that. I know that guy Lord Sopespian who killed the evil King Miraz in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian definitely stuck close by enough to Miraz to not only kill him with an arrow to the head via stabbing his back with it, but also making it seem as though it was the Narnians who killed his liege, and bear in mind, he didn't abandon Miraz at all. I can also cite Revolver Ocelot's actions during the Tanker Incident in Metal Gear Solid 2 where he killed Sergei Gurlukovich and Scott Dolph and then led the Sons of Liberty Members Olga Gurlukovich and Fortune (the daughters of Sergei and Scott, respectively) to believe that Solid Snake had been responsible for their father's death and their overall misfortune, and bear in mind he never abandoned them at all (though ironically Ocelot also by consequence led Olga to believe he merely abandoned him), not to mention his actions in the end of the game when he revealed himself to be a Patriot agent planted into the group and the one pulling all the strings on his masters behalf during the events of that game. And Ocelot is a renowned sadist and is rather infamous for turning on those who place a whole lot of trust in him at the turn of a dime. Heck, Lex Luthor in Superman Returns actually stayed by the woman's bedside right until she expired, yet he never felt any sadness for her death (if anything, just after she died, he just casually finished signing out the will in her stead and dumped the teeth into the glass of water, and then made a rather tasteless joke about his own wig being a heirloom by giving it to a little girl before making clear that he owns everything else, scaring the girl).

      Heck, if you saw those videos of Kefka Palazzo destroying the world, it was made clear he didn't merely abandon Emperor Gestahl, he outright murdered him. Oh, and he also outright murdered Leo and implied that he was going to excuse his murder of him by claiming he had committed treason against the Empire (which Leo had not even been aware of Gestahl basically manipulating him into getting the Espers into a spot to capture them in one fell swoop until the very end thanks to Kefka using an illusion of Gestahl to break Leo's spirit before killing him). Here's the video if you're curious:

      Besides, by your logic, Belle from Beauty and the Beast is a heartless sociopath and a sadist for her nearly getting Beast killed by Gaston and the lynch mob.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Hans cared more about the throne than he did for Anna at the time. His sights were on usurping the throne and proving himself to his family, so he left Anna to freeze to death as his plan was going accordingly. That's not to say that he didn't feel bad for leaving Anna in the library. Of course, we don't know his exact thoughts on this situation, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care about Anna in this instance.
      Only a heartless soceopath or a crule sadist would leave someone to die and then use thier death to trick people into supporting him when he tryed to kill someone that person greatly cared for (And Hans is both).
      Not really, some heartless sociopaths or cruel sadists actually go as far as to stay until the very moment they die (usually by their hands), often torturing them, before doing that. I know that guy Lord Sopespian who killed the evil King Miraz in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian definitely stuck close by enough to Miraz to not only kill him with an arrow to the head via stabbing his back with it, but also making it seem as though it was the Narnians who killed his liege, and bear in mind, he didn't abandon Miraz at all. I can also cite Revolver Ocelot's actions during the Tanker Incident in Metal Gear Solid 2 where he killed Sergei Gurlukovich and Scott Dolph and then led the Sons of Liberty Members Olga Gurlukovich and Fortune (the daughters of Sergei and Scott, respectively) to believe that Solid Snake had been responsible for their father's death and their overall misfortune, and bear in mind he never abandoned them at all (though ironically Ocelot also by consequence led Olga to believe he merely abandoned him), not to mention his actions in the end of the game when he revealed himself to be a Patriot agent planted into the group and the one pulling all the strings on his masters behalf during the events of that game. And Ocelot is a renowned sadist and is rather infamous for turning on those who place a whole lot of trust in him at the turn of a dime. Heck, Lex Luthor in Superman Returns actually stayed by the woman's bedside right until she expired, yet he never felt any sadness for her death (if anything, just after she died, he just casually finished signing out the will in her stead and dumped the teeth into the glass of water, and then made a rather tasteless joke about his own wig being a heirloom by giving it to a little girl before making clear that he owns everything else, scaring the girl).

      Heck, if you saw those videos of Kefka Palazzo destroying the world, it was made clear he didn't merely abandon Emperor Gestahl, he outright murdered him. Oh, and he also outright murdered Leo and implied that he was going to excuse his murder of him by claiming he had committed treason against the Empire (which Leo had not even been aware of Gestahl basically manipulating him into getting the Espers into a spot to capture them in one fell swoop until the very end thanks to Kefka using an illusion of Gestahl to break Leo's spirit before killing him). Here's the video if you're curious:

      Besides, by your logic, Belle from Beauty and the Beast is a heartless sociopath and a sadist for her nearly getting Beast killed by Gaston and the lynch mob.

      Ok I don't watch thous Narnia so I don't know about thous guys, same with that Video of Fefka thing. I thout Bella told the villigers that the beast was real so they would't throw her dad in a mental institution.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Jjuser wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Hans cared more about the throne than he did for Anna at the time. His sights were on usurping the throne and proving himself to his family, so he left Anna to freeze to death as his plan was going accordingly. That's not to say that he didn't feel bad for leaving Anna in the library. Of course, we don't know his exact thoughts on this situation, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care about Anna in this instance.
      Only a heartless soceopath or a crule sadist would leave someone to die and then use thier death to trick people into supporting him when he tryed to kill someone that person greatly cared for (And Hans is both).
      Not really, some heartless sociopaths or cruel sadists actually go as far as to stay until the very moment they die (usually by their hands), often torturing them, before doing that. I know that guy Lord Sopespian who killed the evil King Miraz in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian definitely stuck close by enough to Miraz to not only kill him with an arrow to the head via stabbing his back with it, but also making it seem as though it was the Narnians who killed his liege, and bear in mind, he didn't abandon Miraz at all. I can also cite Revolver Ocelot's actions during the Tanker Incident in Metal Gear Solid 2 where he killed Sergei Gurlukovich and Scott Dolph and then led the Sons of Liberty Members Olga Gurlukovich and Fortune (the daughters of Sergei and Scott, respectively) to believe that Solid Snake had been responsible for their father's death and their overall misfortune, and bear in mind he never abandoned them at all (though ironically Ocelot also by consequence led Olga to believe he merely abandoned him), not to mention his actions in the end of the game when he revealed himself to be a Patriot agent planted into the group and the one pulling all the strings on his masters behalf during the events of that game. And Ocelot is a renowned sadist and is rather infamous for turning on those who place a whole lot of trust in him at the turn of a dime. Heck, Lex Luthor in Superman Returns actually stayed by the woman's bedside right until she expired, yet he never felt any sadness for her death (if anything, just after she died, he just casually finished signing out the will in her stead and dumped the teeth into the glass of water, and then made a rather tasteless joke about his own wig being a heirloom by giving it to a little girl before making clear that he owns everything else, scaring the girl).

      Heck, if you saw those videos of Kefka Palazzo destroying the world, it was made clear he didn't merely abandon Emperor Gestahl, he outright murdered him. Oh, and he also outright murdered Leo and implied that he was going to excuse his murder of him by claiming he had committed treason against the Empire (which Leo had not even been aware of Gestahl basically manipulating him into getting the Espers into a spot to capture them in one fell swoop until the very end thanks to Kefka using an illusion of Gestahl to break Leo's spirit before killing him). Here's the video if you're curious:

      Besides, by your logic, Belle from Beauty and the Beast is a heartless sociopath and a sadist for her nearly getting Beast killed by Gaston and the lynch mob.

      Ok I don't watch thous Narnia so I don't know about thous guys, same with that Video of Fefka thing. I thout Bella told the villigers that the beast was real so they would't throw her dad in a mental institution.

      That's why I gave you links to the Kefka videos, so you'd educate yourself.

      As far as Belle, that was her motivation. However, she definitely knew Gaston was the type who would go so far as to blackmail so he can get what he wants during that time (heck, she deduced his plan for blackmail just from his proposal), and it wouldn't be a stretch to assume he would also be the type to commit murder against a perceived rival. And considering how the villagers acted to Maurice when he was claiming there was a Beast, they'd act unreasonable even if she confirmed it was real, like go off and kill him. She'd know all of this, yet she still chose to expose Beast and nearly get him killed despite knowing all the high risks and extremely low rewards.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Jjuser wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Hans cared more about the throne than he did for Anna at the time. His sights were on usurping the throne and proving himself to his family, so he left Anna to freeze to death as his plan was going accordingly. That's not to say that he didn't feel bad for leaving Anna in the library. Of course, we don't know his exact thoughts on this situation, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care about Anna in this instance.
      Only a heartless soceopath or a crule sadist would leave someone to die and then use thier death to trick people into supporting him when he tryed to kill someone that person greatly cared for (And Hans is both).
      Not really, some heartless sociopaths or cruel sadists actually go as far as to stay until the very moment they die (usually by their hands), often torturing them, before doing that. I know that guy Lord Sopespian who killed the evil King Miraz in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian definitely stuck close by enough to Miraz to not only kill him with an arrow to the head via stabbing his back with it, but also making it seem as though it was the Narnians who killed his liege, and bear in mind, he didn't abandon Miraz at all. I can also cite Revolver Ocelot's actions during the Tanker Incident in Metal Gear Solid 2 where he killed Sergei Gurlukovich and Scott Dolph and then led the Sons of Liberty Members Olga Gurlukovich and Fortune (the daughters of Sergei and Scott, respectively) to believe that Solid Snake had been responsible for their father's death and their overall misfortune, and bear in mind he never abandoned them at all (though ironically Ocelot also by consequence led Olga to believe he merely abandoned him), not to mention his actions in the end of the game when he revealed himself to be a Patriot agent planted into the group and the one pulling all the strings on his masters behalf during the events of that game. And Ocelot is a renowned sadist and is rather infamous for turning on those who place a whole lot of trust in him at the turn of a dime. Heck, Lex Luthor in Superman Returns actually stayed by the woman's bedside right until she expired, yet he never felt any sadness for her death (if anything, just after she died, he just casually finished signing out the will in her stead and dumped the teeth into the glass of water, and then made a rather tasteless joke about his own wig being a heirloom by giving it to a little girl before making clear that he owns everything else, scaring the girl).

      Heck, if you saw those videos of Kefka Palazzo destroying the world, it was made clear he didn't merely abandon Emperor Gestahl, he outright murdered him. Oh, and he also outright murdered Leo and implied that he was going to excuse his murder of him by claiming he had committed treason against the Empire (which Leo had not even been aware of Gestahl basically manipulating him into getting the Espers into a spot to capture them in one fell swoop until the very end thanks to Kefka using an illusion of Gestahl to break Leo's spirit before killing him). Here's the video if you're curious:

      Besides, by your logic, Belle from Beauty and the Beast is a heartless sociopath and a sadist for her nearly getting Beast killed by Gaston and the lynch mob.

      Ok I don't watch thous Narnia so I don't know about thous guys, same with that Video of Fefka thing. I thout Bella told the villigers that the beast was real so they would't throw her dad in a mental institution.
      That's why I gave you links to the Kefka videos, so you'd educate yourself.

      As far as Belle, that was her motivation. However, she definitely knew Gaston was the type who would go so far as to blackmail so he can get what he wants during that time (heck, she deduced his plan for blackmail just from his proposal), and it wouldn't be a stretch to assume he would also be the type to commit murder against a perceived rival. And considering how the villagers acted to Maurice when he was claiming there was a Beast, they'd act unreasonable even if she confirmed it was real, like go off and kill him. She'd know all of this, yet she still chose to expose Beast and nearly get him killed despite knowing all the high risks and extremely low rewards.

      I'll admit I have't seen the movie since I was five or younger so I can't realy speak for Bella but how do you know she knowingly put the beast in danger without even careing? Also lets not get too far off topic.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Jjuser wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Hans cared more about the throne than he did for Anna at the time. His sights were on usurping the throne and proving himself to his family, so he left Anna to freeze to death as his plan was going accordingly. That's not to say that he didn't feel bad for leaving Anna in the library. Of course, we don't know his exact thoughts on this situation, but it's pretty clear that he didn't care about Anna in this instance.
      Only a heartless soceopath or a crule sadist would leave someone to die and then use thier death to trick people into supporting him when he tryed to kill someone that person greatly cared for (And Hans is both).
      Not really, some heartless sociopaths or cruel sadists actually go as far as to stay until the very moment they die (usually by their hands), often torturing them, before doing that. I know that guy Lord Sopespian who killed the evil King Miraz in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian definitely stuck close by enough to Miraz to not only kill him with an arrow to the head via stabbing his back with it, but also making it seem as though it was the Narnians who killed his liege, and bear in mind, he didn't abandon Miraz at all. I can also cite Revolver Ocelot's actions during the Tanker Incident in Metal Gear Solid 2 where he killed Sergei Gurlukovich and Scott Dolph and then led the Sons of Liberty Members Olga Gurlukovich and Fortune (the daughters of Sergei and Scott, respectively) to believe that Solid Snake had been responsible for their father's death and their overall misfortune, and bear in mind he never abandoned them at all (though ironically Ocelot also by consequence led Olga to believe he merely abandoned him), not to mention his actions in the end of the game when he revealed himself to be a Patriot agent planted into the group and the one pulling all the strings on his masters behalf during the events of that game. And Ocelot is a renowned sadist and is rather infamous for turning on those who place a whole lot of trust in him at the turn of a dime. Heck, Lex Luthor in Superman Returns actually stayed by the woman's bedside right until she expired, yet he never felt any sadness for her death (if anything, just after she died, he just casually finished signing out the will in her stead and dumped the teeth into the glass of water, and then made a rather tasteless joke about his own wig being a heirloom by giving it to a little girl before making clear that he owns everything else, scaring the girl).

      Heck, if you saw those videos of Kefka Palazzo destroying the world, it was made clear he didn't merely abandon Emperor Gestahl, he outright murdered him. Oh, and he also outright murdered Leo and implied that he was going to excuse his murder of him by claiming he had committed treason against the Empire (which Leo had not even been aware of Gestahl basically manipulating him into getting the Espers into a spot to capture them in one fell swoop until the very end thanks to Kefka using an illusion of Gestahl to break Leo's spirit before killing him). Here's the video if you're curious:

      Besides, by your logic, Belle from Beauty and the Beast is a heartless sociopath and a sadist for her nearly getting Beast killed by Gaston and the lynch mob.

      Ok I don't watch thous Narnia so I don't know about thous guys, same with that Video of Fefka thing. I thout Bella told the villigers that the beast was real so they would't throw her dad in a mental institution.
      That's why I gave you links to the Kefka videos, so you'd educate yourself.

      As far as Belle, that was her motivation. However, she definitely knew Gaston was the type who would go so far as to blackmail so he can get what he wants during that time (heck, she deduced his plan for blackmail just from his proposal), and it wouldn't be a stretch to assume he would also be the type to commit murder against a perceived rival. And considering how the villagers acted to Maurice when he was claiming there was a Beast, they'd act unreasonable even if she confirmed it was real, like go off and kill him. She'd know all of this, yet she still chose to expose Beast and nearly get him killed despite knowing all the high risks and extremely low rewards.

      I'll admit I have't seen the movie since I was five or younger so I can't realy speak for Bella but how do you know she knowingly put the beast in danger without even careing? Also lets not get too far off topic.

      She's either a sociopath or exceptionally stupid, because honestly, it would have been obvious even to a kindergartner that exposing the beast to a congregated lynch mob orchestrated by her rival suitor specifically as blackmail material to force her hand in marriage was never going to end well.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      If hans cared about others then why did he leave Anna to die?

      Sorry for late reply.

      Personally I think the reason was, combined, that

      a) there was absolutely nothing to be done, and since it was "getting colder by the minute" time was precious and it was better to go kill Elsa ASAP than sit around holding Anna's hand as she died and then go, and

      b) he really didn't like Anna all that much personally, and wanted to be a dick to her while he got the chance.

      I mean, despising one person (Anna) really doesn't mean that one is incapable of feeling any love for anyone, you know. It's very possible Hans disliked Anna while also caring for the citizens' wellbeing.

      As for possible reasons why Hans might despise Anna (I'm guessing and speculating here), they might be that

      1) he really doesn't like crazy, but instead likes dignified, proper things, refined manners etc, and fundamentally dislikes Anna's reckless whimsy and silliness. This is supported by his suffering microexpressions during Love Is an Open Door, he makes some choice WTF faces and is clearly embarrassed by Anna at the engagement announcement scene

      2) Anna behaves very irresponsibly and improperly for a Princess, maybe he disapproves

      3) Anna doesn't really love him, she's in love with the idea of a whirlwind romance with a handsome prince, but she doesn't really care about Hans as a person. This is shown when she immediately forgets the painful trauma Hans tells her of his past; that he was treated cruelly and neglected by his brothers and he wants to escape the pain of the past. Anna doesn't give a fig about her darling fiance's feelings and wants to bring the people he's trying to escape from in to live with them (we can invite all twelve of your brothers to stay with us) just so she's not bored. Probably she doesn't do it intentionally, sure, and either forgets or doesn't think it's important - but nevertheless it shows that she's not that interested in who he is at all. This might create some resentment in Hans. (I know I would be very upset if a romantic partner totally forgot something like that)

      4) Anna caused the entire disaster by causing a public scene with Elsa. If she'd done as Elsa asked and had the word in private the disaster would have most likely been avoided. Let's remember that Hans has been running around keeping everyone alive and taking care of the kingdom and the citizens for Elsa and Anna while they, the actual royals, have fled all their responsibilities and essentially abandoned their people. Hans also told Anna that it's too dangerous, she didn't listen, she gets herself into trouble and her horse returns alone, so on top of taking care of the kingdom Hans now has to arrange for a search & rescue mission, as if he didn't have his hands full already. He almost dies trying to find and save Anna (the Marshmallow fight), manages to talk Elsa away from killing some men and bring her back and find out that she can't thaw the winter and is about to go on yet another search trip, while Anna, who's been who knows where, finally appears, dying. So it's possible he's fed up with her and everything she's put him through, in a way.

      5) He might be fundamentally jealous of Anna's position as second-in-line who gets a lot of attention from parents and servants, instead of thirteenth-in-line who's practically invisible.

      6) He might be a very angry person beneath his nice appearance in general, and now sees a chance to finally be viciously mean to someone after a lifetime of pretending to smile through it all.

      So, I don't know, could be something like that, some combination of those. I'm really looking forward to reading how they write his internal thoughts going in the upcoming A Frozen Heart book. Hoping they'll show his thoughts, of course!

      And also, I wouldn't say that Hans tricked the dignitaries into supporting him. You remember that when he was about to go for the second search & rescue mission to find Anna, they tried to talk him out of it and wanted to just abandon Anna into the wild to fend for herself' even though they knew she was in trouble and had lost her horse. Seriously. They told Hans that he's all that Arendelle has left - even before they knew anything about Anna. Sure, Hans planned to seize the throne before, too, but the dignitaries really supported him for the Arendelle throne on their own, they didn't need any convincing.

      But of course, when they realised that they backed the wrong horse and the sisters were the winning team after all, they quickly turned their coats and started to cheer for them, even though they'd come to the balcony to witness Hans execute Elsa.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      What will be the future of Hans in the Frozen universe? Will he continue to be a villain or will he redeem? Will he escape his sentence? I could see him escaping with an army to attack Arendelle just like Napoleon's escape from Elba and his Hundred Days. I am very curious to what will happen with Hans.

      I see his redemption happening in Frozen 2. I do not, however, want him pairing up with Elsa.

        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