FANDOM


  • I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      Loading editor
    • He will  not be redeemed just get it.

        Loading editor
    • Papermaniac wrote: He will  not be redeemed just get it.

      I'm not too sure if Hans should be redeemed, but never say never. After all, most people didn't exactly anticipate that Anastasia or Iago would get redeemed, and look what happened, they did. Granted, it was in sequels, but still... Heck, not many people anticipated that Maleficent would get redeemed in her film either. If even the likes of Maleficent could get redeemed, Hans has similar chances.

        Loading editor
    • Papermaniac wrote: He will  not be redeemed just get it.

      There actually is somewhat of a good chance that he will get redeemed. Several sources have mentioned it.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Papermaniac wrote: He will  not be redeemed just get it.

      There actually is somewhat of a good chance that he will get redeemed. Several sources have mentioned it.

      Yeah, like Hans' voice actor.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!

      Just so you're aware, EdwardDavies1, they already made clear Hans will be redeemed in Frozen 2. His own voice actor even stated it. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else wants. What matters is what Disney's going to do.

      Besides, they've redeemed far worse characters before, anyhow. Maleficent got redeemed in her film (yeah, the Mistress of All Evil actually got redeemed, and that's the woman who was effectively a pure monster in her debut film), and besides which, Iago got redeemed in Return of Jafar and is even friends with Jasmine now, and this is despite the fact that Iago was the one who practically gave Jafar the idea to be a black widower to marry into the throne, and even openly suggested, sadistically, that he "push them off a cliff" once he's on the throne.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!
      Just so you're aware, EdwardDavies1, they already made clear Hans will be redeemed in Frozen 2. His own voice actor even stated it. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else wants. What matters is what Disney's going to do.

      Besides, they've redeemed far worse characters before, anyhow. Maleficent got redeemed in her film (yeah, the Mistress of All Evil actually got redeemed, and that's the woman who was effectively a pure monster in her debut film), and besides which, Iago got redeemed in Return of Jafar and is even friends with Jasmine now, and this is despite the fact that Iago was the one who practically gave Jafar the idea to be a black widower to marry into the throne, and even openly suggested, sadistically, that he "push them off a cliff" once he's on the throne.

      Ok, if you say its true, I'll accept it. But We should not forget about what he did to Anna and Elsa. If anything, I'd say that Hans should just be on good terms with Elsa, and not pair them together. If Elsa is to have a love interest, it will have to be a different character.

      Besides wasnt Hans' role in the first film supposed to show everyone about the dangers about entering a relationship with someone you just met? Because I have mixed feelings about Hans redemption. I fear his redemption might betray the message of not marrying someone you just met.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!
      Just so you're aware, EdwardDavies1, they already made clear Hans will be redeemed in Frozen 2. His own voice actor even stated it. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else wants. What matters is what Disney's going to do.

      Besides, they've redeemed far worse characters before, anyhow. Maleficent got redeemed in her film (yeah, the Mistress of All Evil actually got redeemed, and that's the woman who was effectively a pure monster in her debut film), and besides which, Iago got redeemed in Return of Jafar and is even friends with Jasmine now, and this is despite the fact that Iago was the one who practically gave Jafar the idea to be a black widower to marry into the throne, and even openly suggested, sadistically, that he "push them off a cliff" once he's on the throne.

      Ok, if you say its true, I'll accept it. But We should not forget about what he did to Anna and Elsa. If anything, I'd say that Hans should just be on good terms with Elsa, and not pair them together. If Elsa is to have a love interest, it will have to be a different character.

      Besides wasnt Hans' role in the first film supposed to show everyone about the dangers about entering a relationship with someone you just met? Because I have mixed feelings about Hans redemption. I fear his redemption might betray the message of not marrying someone you just met.

      His redemption would not betray that message. He does not have to marry anyone to get redeemed.

        Loading editor
    • Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote: Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

      That's not a unique message by any means. The Evil Queen from Snow White (especially her witch form) and both Gaston and Beast from Beauty and the Beast both had those representing the message, as did Quasimodo from Hunchback. Heck, even Ariel herself was representative of that message (don't forget, Ariel wasn't originally human). Having Hans be redeemed would not do any harm since we've still got those other guys to take into account anyhow.

      Besides, considering how several girls during the 20th century obviously followed that message to the letter with Jean-Paul Sartre and still got very much burned by him anyways, I'm a bit cynical about messages about not judging books by their covers anyhow (in case you're wondering exactly WHAT I mean by that, Jean-Paul Sartre was not a handsome man by any stretch, being so deformed even he acknowledged he was physically hideous, yet girls somehow managed to become infatuated with him despite that, obviously ignoring his hideous features meaning they obviously didn't judge him by his cover, and... well, let's just say sleeping with him proved to be a huge mistake that if anything had their lives ruined. Simone de Beauvoir was both an instigator and a victim of this.).

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

      That's not a unique message by any means. The Evil Queen from Snow White (especially her witch form) and both Gaston and Beast from Beauty and the Beast both had those representing the message, as did Quasimodo from Hunchback. Heck, even Ariel herself was representative of that message (don't forget, Ariel wasn't originally human). Having Hans be redeemed would not do any harm since we've still got those other guys to take into account anyhow.

      Besides, considering how several girls during the 20th century obviously followed that message to the letter with Jean-Paul Sartre and still got very much burned by him anyways, I'm a bit cynical about messages about not judging books by their covers anyhow (in case you're wondering exactly WHAT I mean by that, Jean-Paul Sartre was not a handsome man by any stretch, being so deformed even he acknowledged he was physically hideous, yet girls somehow managed to become infatuated with him despite that, obviously ignoring his hideous features meaning they obviously didn't judge him by his cover, and... well, let's just say sleeping with him proved to be a huge mistake that if anything had their lives ruined. Simone de Beauvoir was both an instigator and a victim of this.).

      Well I hope that they dont pair Hans and Elsa up. Besides look what he did to her and Anna. He tried to kill them, all without remorse. Sociopaths dont feel remorse.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

      That's not a unique message by any means. The Evil Queen from Snow White (especially her witch form) and both Gaston and Beast from Beauty and the Beast both had those representing the message, as did Quasimodo from Hunchback. Heck, even Ariel herself was representative of that message (don't forget, Ariel wasn't originally human). Having Hans be redeemed would not do any harm since we've still got those other guys to take into account anyhow.

      Besides, considering how several girls during the 20th century obviously followed that message to the letter with Jean-Paul Sartre and still got very much burned by him anyways, I'm a bit cynical about messages about not judging books by their covers anyhow (in case you're wondering exactly WHAT I mean by that, Jean-Paul Sartre was not a handsome man by any stretch, being so deformed even he acknowledged he was physically hideous, yet girls somehow managed to become infatuated with him despite that, obviously ignoring his hideous features meaning they obviously didn't judge him by his cover, and... well, let's just say sleeping with him proved to be a huge mistake that if anything had their lives ruined. Simone de Beauvoir was both an instigator and a victim of this.).

      Well I hope that they dont pair Hans and Elsa up. Besides look what he did to her and Anna. He tried to kill them, all without remorse. Sociopaths dont feel remorse.

      Who said they should be paired up? All that's being said is that Hans may be redeemed, not that he and Elsa will be hitched (besides, even before then, Elsa and Hans weren't a match based on what she said to Anna). And besides, need I remind you that Jasmine and Iago, heck, Iago and Sultan are pretty much buddy-buddy with each other, even though that parrot actually was the guy who planned that whole black widower thing Jafar attempted to do without remorse in the original film?

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

      That's not a unique message by any means. The Evil Queen from Snow White (especially her witch form) and both Gaston and Beast from Beauty and the Beast both had those representing the message, as did Quasimodo from Hunchback. Heck, even Ariel herself was representative of that message (don't forget, Ariel wasn't originally human). Having Hans be redeemed would not do any harm since we've still got those other guys to take into account anyhow.

      Besides, considering how several girls during the 20th century obviously followed that message to the letter with Jean-Paul Sartre and still got very much burned by him anyways, I'm a bit cynical about messages about not judging books by their covers anyhow (in case you're wondering exactly WHAT I mean by that, Jean-Paul Sartre was not a handsome man by any stretch, being so deformed even he acknowledged he was physically hideous, yet girls somehow managed to become infatuated with him despite that, obviously ignoring his hideous features meaning they obviously didn't judge him by his cover, and... well, let's just say sleeping with him proved to be a huge mistake that if anything had their lives ruined. Simone de Beauvoir was both an instigator and a victim of this.).

      Well I hope that they dont pair Hans and Elsa up. Besides look what he did to her and Anna. He tried to kill them, all without remorse. Sociopaths dont feel remorse.

      Hans does show remorse. He is not a sociopath. He tried to kill Elsa to save the nation. Elsa is Hans' number one enemy. She had his dream crushed. They would not work well together. Hans also had the duty to kill her.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

      That's not a unique message by any means. The Evil Queen from Snow White (especially her witch form) and both Gaston and Beast from Beauty and the Beast both had those representing the message, as did Quasimodo from Hunchback. Heck, even Ariel herself was representative of that message (don't forget, Ariel wasn't originally human). Having Hans be redeemed would not do any harm since we've still got those other guys to take into account anyhow.

      Besides, considering how several girls during the 20th century obviously followed that message to the letter with Jean-Paul Sartre and still got very much burned by him anyways, I'm a bit cynical about messages about not judging books by their covers anyhow (in case you're wondering exactly WHAT I mean by that, Jean-Paul Sartre was not a handsome man by any stretch, being so deformed even he acknowledged he was physically hideous, yet girls somehow managed to become infatuated with him despite that, obviously ignoring his hideous features meaning they obviously didn't judge him by his cover, and... well, let's just say sleeping with him proved to be a huge mistake that if anything had their lives ruined. Simone de Beauvoir was both an instigator and a victim of this.).

      Well I hope that they dont pair Hans and Elsa up. Besides look what he did to her and Anna. He tried to kill them, all without remorse. Sociopaths dont feel remorse.
      Hans does show remorse. He is not a sociopath. He tried to kill Elsa to save the nation. Elsa is Hans' number one enemy. She had his dream crushed. They would not work well together. Hans also had the duty to kill her.

      Are you trying to say that Elsa is a monster? Are you? 

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Joseph8 wrote:
      EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

      That's not a unique message by any means. The Evil Queen from Snow White (especially her witch form) and both Gaston and Beast from Beauty and the Beast both had those representing the message, as did Quasimodo from Hunchback. Heck, even Ariel herself was representative of that message (don't forget, Ariel wasn't originally human). Having Hans be redeemed would not do any harm since we've still got those other guys to take into account anyhow.

      Besides, considering how several girls during the 20th century obviously followed that message to the letter with Jean-Paul Sartre and still got very much burned by him anyways, I'm a bit cynical about messages about not judging books by their covers anyhow (in case you're wondering exactly WHAT I mean by that, Jean-Paul Sartre was not a handsome man by any stretch, being so deformed even he acknowledged he was physically hideous, yet girls somehow managed to become infatuated with him despite that, obviously ignoring his hideous features meaning they obviously didn't judge him by his cover, and... well, let's just say sleeping with him proved to be a huge mistake that if anything had their lives ruined. Simone de Beauvoir was both an instigator and a victim of this.).

      Well I hope that they dont pair Hans and Elsa up. Besides look what he did to her and Anna. He tried to kill them, all without remorse. Sociopaths dont feel remorse.
      Hans does show remorse. He is not a sociopath. He tried to kill Elsa to save the nation. Elsa is Hans' number one enemy. She had his dream crushed. They would not work well together. Hans also had the duty to kill her.
      Are you trying to say that Elsa is a monster? Are you? 

      Elsa is not a monster. She was just a threat to the nation and its people.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Joseph8 wrote:
      EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Oh I forgot to add something else to my message. Wasn't Hans role also supposed to show the theme of not judging a book by its cover?

      That's not a unique message by any means. The Evil Queen from Snow White (especially her witch form) and both Gaston and Beast from Beauty and the Beast both had those representing the message, as did Quasimodo from Hunchback. Heck, even Ariel herself was representative of that message (don't forget, Ariel wasn't originally human). Having Hans be redeemed would not do any harm since we've still got those other guys to take into account anyhow.

      Besides, considering how several girls during the 20th century obviously followed that message to the letter with Jean-Paul Sartre and still got very much burned by him anyways, I'm a bit cynical about messages about not judging books by their covers anyhow (in case you're wondering exactly WHAT I mean by that, Jean-Paul Sartre was not a handsome man by any stretch, being so deformed even he acknowledged he was physically hideous, yet girls somehow managed to become infatuated with him despite that, obviously ignoring his hideous features meaning they obviously didn't judge him by his cover, and... well, let's just say sleeping with him proved to be a huge mistake that if anything had their lives ruined. Simone de Beauvoir was both an instigator and a victim of this.).

      Well I hope that they dont pair Hans and Elsa up. Besides look what he did to her and Anna. He tried to kill them, all without remorse. Sociopaths dont feel remorse.
      Hans does show remorse. He is not a sociopath. He tried to kill Elsa to save the nation. Elsa is Hans' number one enemy. She had his dream crushed. They would not work well together. Hans also had the duty to kill her.
      Are you trying to say that Elsa is a monster? Are you? 
      Elsa is not a monster. She was just a threat to the nation and its people.

      Thats just another way of saying that she's a monster to them. And Frozen is not about nations. It is about Anna and Elsa, about them getting back together, and Anna learning about true love and Elsa learning how to control her powers, simple as that.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Are you trying to say that Elsa is a monster? Are you? 

      I think what he's trying to say is that at the time, everyone - Hans, the dignitaries, the Arendelle guards and citizens - assumed that Elsa had

      a) cursed the land to an eternal winter, which she can't stop, so the only way to stop the winter that's threatening to kill a lot of people ("It's getting colder by the minute. If we don't do something soon, we'll all freeze to death") is to kill her

      and

      b) intentionally cursed Anna, her only living family member and essentially the ruling family member after Elsa had de facto abdicated (ran away), to death with her powers. You remember that Anna didn't say Elsa cursed her by accident at all, she just said "Elsa struck me with her powers", and when Hans, shocked, reminded her that she'd said that Elsa would never hurt her, she just said "I was wrong", that's it.


      So, Elsa seemed like a dangerous witch who'd intentionally murdered her sister and who had to die in order for the kingdom to be saved.

      Now note that realising that does NOT remove the fact that Hans was planning to off Elsa once he and Anna were married, or that he was a dick to Anna, so no, it doesn't make him some "misunderstood hero", but the fact remains that anyone would have tried to kill Elsa at that point. If it hadn't been Hans, it would have been the palace guards, or someone. Of course the audience knows the truth, but the characters don't.


      (Also please edit your quotes so that it won't descend into the horror of endless nesting quotes you have to scroll past to see only 1 line of new comment, I humbly beg you ;_;)

        Loading editor
    • And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote: And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      Well, there was Valentino's Fairest of All regarding the Wicked Queen being portrayed in a fairly sympathetic light, and you could go for the Maleficent live action film (though I personally wouldn't with the latter, considering it just butchered the original tale). But I see your point regarding Hans, since this upcoming book isn't likely to be a Killing Joke/Wicked-esque retelling. I guess the closest we've gotten before Hans was with Frollo who is depicted to be very fearful of God and desiring to follow his works closely.

      EDIT: And yeah, Hans is definitely unique compared to other Disney Villains, who usually, beyond trying to manipulate the heroes, make no secret to having evil ends. I'm not sure if he's necessarily that lame, though. I'd argue Gaston and Ratcliffe are a LOT lamer than Hans, since with the first, he has an extremely poor villainous motive (he wants to marry Belle due to her being the so-called "most beautiful" woman in the village, yet for some extremely odd reason, those blonde triplets who obviously are in love with him he ends up constantly ignoring despite the fact that they may actually arguably outrank Belle in terms of physical beauty [seriously, they have the kind of body frames one would expect from the Dead or Alive series (like Tina Armstrong, for example).].), and he also proceeded to gloat openly enough details about his evil plan in public for everyone and their neighbor to not only make clear exactly what he was planning, but also just how much of a scumbag he truly as, yet somehow the villagers are cheering when realistically, they'd arrest him on the spot, being their hero or not. And with the second, his overall motives were largely lame (just your average money grabber), and in fact was considered the most unpopular villain in the Disney Renaissance franchise largely because of it, and he doesn't even make it up by being somewhat funny unlike Gaston.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      Alright, I'll trust you on that one. As long as Joseph8 stops trying to force his opinion onto me. I'm still having mixed feelings about Hans being redeemed. And you do know how much I hate it when people try to force their opinions onto me.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.

      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:


      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?

      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?

      Yeah, and based on some of her commentary of her development of Belle, she also shames women who actually want to go for men anyways, implying if not outright stating they are weak and insipid and somehow only wait for their prince to come, and based on how she described Ariel as this despite the fact that Ariel actually HAD dreams formed independently of Eric or that she was proactive. I even heard that she based the final version of Gaston on her various ex-husbands (I'm not sure who that says more about: Her exes, or Woolverton herself for apparently constantly going for Mr. Wrong every single time). Heck, she even said she specifically based Belle on the Women's Liberation Movement, probably the most sexist and misandric group in existence and hypocritical at that.

      Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against strong-willed females. I have immense respect for Ariel from The Little Mermaid for being very proactive, I also like Samus Aran and Kim Possible, and heck, I also immensely like Misty from the Pokémon anime. But the thing is: The franchises that I mentioned don't demonize males or shame them (Ash and Brock were treated pretty well, at least in earlier seasons; Prince Eric and King Triton were also depicted in a decent manner; the males in the Metroid franchise were also for the most part handled pretty well, and even with Kim Possible, it actually treats the father decently, as well as some other males decently, and Ron... well, maybe he wasn't treated decently, but considering it's strongly implied he has PTSD, he at least has an excuse for his problems).

      At this rate, Jennifer Lee may have to eat crow at this point, not have much of an option but to redeem him.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:


      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?

      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.

      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:


      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:


      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.

      They claim that, but my experience with a particularly bad professor made pretty clear that what they claim is not what they actually think in reality. They claim they want equality, but they really want to be superior to us men. Besides, you should have seen what the likes of Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan had in store. Read these sources if you don't believe me (and before you claim they were sexist bigots, bear in mind the people who wrote these articles are female, meaning they obviously weren't sexist at all):

      Heck, Simone de Beauvoir, the poster girl for feminism, actually felt women would be "empowered" by basically being made a guy's sex toy and then abandoned, and even implied housewifery is parasitic. Heck, there were plenty of feminists who actually promoted the likes of Hugh Hefner as being a defender of the cause. Yes, the same Hugh Hefner who owns Playboy, the kind of guy who exploits women and treats them as objects to dispose of.

      And besides, they bashed a lot of girls who even desired to go for a man even if they actually were proactive before meeting their man (ie, Ariel. Even you have to agree that Ariel definitely wasn't the type to just wait for her prince or go for marriage or love as their sole goal, yet that's exactly what Linda Woolverton tastelessly implied about her when describing Belle as being the first to not be those things.), so why don't you call them sexist then?

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:



      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.
      They claim that, but my experience with a particularly bad professor made pretty clear that what they claim is not what they actually think in reality. They claim they want equality, but they really want to be superior to us men. Besides, you should have seen what the likes of Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan had in store. Read these sources if you don't believe me (and before you claim they were sexist bigots, bear in mind the people who wrote these articles are female, meaning they obviously weren't sexist at all):

      Heck, Simone de Beauvoir, the poster girl for feminism, actually felt women would be "empowered" by basically being made a guy's sex toy and then abandoned, and even implied housewifery is parasitic. Heck, there were plenty of feminists who actually promoted the likes of Hugh Hefner as being a defender of the cause. Yes, the same Hugh Hefner who owns Playboy, the kind of guy who exploits women and treats them as objects to dispose of.

      And besides, they bashed a lot of girls who even desired to go for a man even if they actually were proactive before meeting their man (ie, Ariel. Even you have to agree that Ariel definitely wasn't the type to just wait for her prince or go for marriage or love as their sole goal, yet that's exactly what Linda Woolverton tastelessly implied about her when describing Belle as being the first to not be those things.), so why don't you call them sexist then?

      I will never call them sexist. Ever. I will defend them and their decisions no matter what. And nothing that you guys say will ever change my mind.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:



      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.
      They claim that, but my experience with a particularly bad professor made pretty clear that what they claim is not what they actually think in reality. They claim they want equality, but they really want to be superior to us men. Besides, you should have seen what the likes of Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan had in store. Read these sources if you don't believe me (and before you claim they were sexist bigots, bear in mind the people who wrote these articles are female, meaning they obviously weren't sexist at all):

      Heck, Simone de Beauvoir, the poster girl for feminism, actually felt women would be "empowered" by basically being made a guy's sex toy and then abandoned, and even implied housewifery is parasitic. Heck, there were plenty of feminists who actually promoted the likes of Hugh Hefner as being a defender of the cause. Yes, the same Hugh Hefner who owns Playboy, the kind of guy who exploits women and treats them as objects to dispose of.

      And besides, they bashed a lot of girls who even desired to go for a man even if they actually were proactive before meeting their man (ie, Ariel. Even you have to agree that Ariel definitely wasn't the type to just wait for her prince or go for marriage or love as their sole goal, yet that's exactly what Linda Woolverton tastelessly implied about her when describing Belle as being the first to not be those things.), so why don't you call them sexist then?

      I will never call them sexist. Ever. I will defend them and their decisions no matter what. And nothing that you guys say will ever change my mind.

      I'm what you call someone who believes what goes for the goose goes for the gander as well. If females decide to be derogatory to males, I dislike them just as much as if men decide to be derogatory to women. I wish you would realize the same.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:



      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.
      They claim that, but my experience with a particularly bad professor made pretty clear that what they claim is not what they actually think in reality. They claim they want equality, but they really want to be superior to us men. Besides, you should have seen what the likes of Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan had in store. Read these sources if you don't believe me (and before you claim they were sexist bigots, bear in mind the people who wrote these articles are female, meaning they obviously weren't sexist at all):

      Heck, Simone de Beauvoir, the poster girl for feminism, actually felt women would be "empowered" by basically being made a guy's sex toy and then abandoned, and even implied housewifery is parasitic. Heck, there were plenty of feminists who actually promoted the likes of Hugh Hefner as being a defender of the cause. Yes, the same Hugh Hefner who owns Playboy, the kind of guy who exploits women and treats them as objects to dispose of.

      And besides, they bashed a lot of girls who even desired to go for a man even if they actually were proactive before meeting their man (ie, Ariel. Even you have to agree that Ariel definitely wasn't the type to just wait for her prince or go for marriage or love as their sole goal, yet that's exactly what Linda Woolverton tastelessly implied about her when describing Belle as being the first to not be those things.), so why don't you call them sexist then?

      I will never call them sexist. Ever. I will defend them and their decisions no matter what. And nothing that you guys say will ever change my mind.
      I'm what you call someone who believes what goes for the goose goes for the gander as well. If females decide to be derogatory to males, I dislike them just as much as if men decide to be derogatory to women. I wish you would realize the same.

      Yep, you're trying to force your opinion onto mine. And you know how much I hate it when people try to force their opinion onto mine. I'm sticking to my opinion and it is not going to change.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:



      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.

      I don't care what goes on inside your politically correct liberal brain. I stand in opposition to radical feminism. Men like Hans should not be disrespected by radical feminists. I will not yield in that view.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:



      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.

      I don't care what goes on inside your politically correct liberal brain. I stand in opposition to radical feminism. Men like Hans should not be disrespected by radical feminists. I will not yield in that view.

      Me too. I've already had enough attacks from at least one radical feminist for my gender (not to mention said radical feminist actually LYING through her teeth about sufferings women went under before the 1960s, like claiming they were illiterate and unable to get an education before then), anyways, not to mention being told that just because I'm male that automatically means my claims for wanting to help women is automatically suspect.

      And honestly, we definitely know Linda Woolverton at the very least IS a radical feminist considering she not only demonized most of the males in the film (yes, even the Beast was demonized to some extent, considering he got landed with all the blame for that wolf attack even when if anything Belle deserved most of that blame [probably the only blame Beast actually DID deserve was losing control of his temper to such a degree that he smashed furniture]), but she even went as far as to slander and demonize any female characters who even dared implied they actually might want to get married, like referring to Belle's predecessors, especially Ariel, as being weak, insipid, only focusing on marriage and love as their goals, and only waiting for their prince to come and claiming Belle broke that mold (I swear, I'm not making this up). I mean, seriously, Ariel is probably the one DP predecessor to Belle who obviously could not match up to that description anyhow: She was strong-willed, actually went toe-to-toe with a shark, did plenty of badass stuff in the film, actually SAVED her love interest, twice (three times counting the Vanessa incident), and she had formed her goals long before she even was aware of Eric's existence, much less met him. Heck, her goals didn't even necessarily involve marriage and love, just living among humanity. And she didn't "wait for her prince to come," either. If anything, she pursued her dream of becoming human after discovering Eric. Probably the only reason Woolverton would even say such a slanderous statement about Ariel would be because unlike Belle, Ariel actually DID want to marry Eric from the get-go. Even Cinderella and Snow White actually had goals beyond marrying their prince that they strived for (specifically, liberating themselves from their wicked stepfamilies), and they'd definitely have to be pretty strong mentally to put up with the abuse anyhow, not to mention actually flee in Snow White's case. Probably the only DP who actually MIGHT match up with Woolverton's claims 100% is Aurora in the original Sleeping Beauty film, and even that's mostly because she had minimal characterization as it is. And if that's not enough, hints at Woolverton's agenda, especially her poor view on marriage, were oozing through the film. Putting aside the bit where Belle shoved Gaston into a mudpool and took amusement at it (which was unnecessary especially when unlike Aurora, Jasmine, Pocahontas, or even Merida, she wasn't even in an arranged marriage, the proposal was entirely free of her choosing, no prodding from her parents [heck, her dad wasn't even home at the time] yet she still decided to just behave like a jerk to her suitor.), there's also the blonde triplets in the same film. They spent their time crushing on Gaston, are implied to have some agreement to Gaston's view on women being housewives first and foremost, and they're called the Bimbettes (you know, "Bimbos"). Yet there's zero indication they were actually brainless (far from it, they picked up pretty quickly Belle refused Gaston before Gaston seemed to realize she refused him, they also pretty clearly knew Gaston marrying Belle meant they have no shot at him, and it's also implied they realized that Gaston's plan was wrong and didn't support it), nor is there even a hint that they've even slept with Gaston (if anything, Gaston, save for one brief instance where he lifted their bench, spent most of the movie completely ignoring them), and given their obvious infatuation with Gaston, it's extremely unlikely they slept with any of the village males either, meaning that like Belle, they're most likely virgins, and their outfits aren't even as bad as most of the other girls in the film, being very conservatively-dressed even with their busts/cleavage (come on, even Belle wore a similar outfit during the Ballroom sequence). And the way the film was written, we are to assume that they are somehow girls we shouldn't support, despite the fact that we don't see them deliberately doing or supporting any evil plans (heck, if anything, it's [unintentionally] implied they don't seem to have any problem with Belle's father Maurice, aka the local crackpot inventor as the villagers call him, seeing how they don't laugh alongside LeFou and Gaston when mocking Maurice to Belle's face, despite their clearly being within earshot of them). And don't even get me started on what she did with that piece of trash movie Maleficent, which oozed even more with the feminist agenda. Oh, and a bit of a tangent, but for a film that is critically lauded for averting stereotypes, they certainly played up a lot of stereotypes in the film, like Lumiere being the womanizing sex-obsessed Frenchman, the featherduster being the promiscuous French maid, Gaston largely being a dumb muscle, Cogsworth being an uptight British servant, Belle being the brainy brunette (even when, books aside [and even that left much to be desired in the original film since all we get is that she reads fairy tales, not exactly the most advanced literature out there], there were very few instances of her actually USING her brain), and the triplets being the so-called dumb blondes (which is especially bad considering the original fairytale explicitly stated Belle's hair color WAS blonde and it was also made pretty clear she was intelligent). In all honesty, the only character in the film who ISN'T a stereotype in any way was the Beast, probably the only character to actually BE complex (certainly the only one intentionally made complex).

      Based on some of her statements, Jennifer Lee is probably cut from the same cloth, even making similar disparaging remarks about the first four Disney Princesses. Though I must ask, what do you think of Kristoff? I'm not sure how well he was treated (Mom may have watched the film, but I haven't so I genuinely have no eyewitness testimony to offer). I know how Weselton and Hans were treated was just horrible, but I'm not sure about Kristoff (he is male, after all).

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:



      Vilivi wrote:
      And, in general considering the theme of the thread - yes, it's very likely Hans will get redeemed.

      Not necessarily paired with Elsa (though I'd personally love that), but somewhat redeemed. I really hope that they won't turn him into this goody-two-shoes character, either, it's not in his personality. He has a d*ckish side to him, you can't just gloss over that.

      It's implied by how they wrote him in the first film - as far as Disney villains go, Hans is pretty lame, and he's written in a conflicting way, you know, trying to kill Elsa while under the impression it's the only way to save Arendelle and that she's murdered Anna intentionally, being good and kind with the people and animals, saving Elsa at the Ice Palace (yes, if he wanted her dead the most sure and clean way would have been to not interfere and let her get shot by the Weselton thug), generally being a better ruler than Elsa or Anna and keeping the citizens alive through the crisis, expressing a desire to be the hero who will save Arendelle' instead of cackling about enslaving them all which would be much more Disney villain-y etc. He's been written as an ambiguous character. It makes him lame as a villain - it's been commented on in the media - but it also makes him redeemable.

      Also, you have theinterview with Santino Fontana stating that already well before they announced Frozen 2, the writers had talked to him about how they want to bring Hans back and redeem him.

      Also, you have A Frozen Heart, the upcoming novel, which based on the pre-released excerpts paints Hans in a very sympathetic light, as someone who's abused at home and just wants to find his place in the world and escape his horrible home situation and definitely not as someone who's a heartless sociopath - this is a first for Disney villains, I think. I've never heard of official semicanon material being released on other Disney villains, painting them as tragic, sympathetic figures the audience is meant to feel bad for. So this also seems very much like they're paving the way for eventual Hans redemption.

      And also, they included him in the short, voiced by Fontana even, included a canon map of the Southern Isles (right next to Arendelle), showed him definitely being alive and made fun of him, made him into a pitiable character, as opposed to a threatening or dangerous one. It'd be very hard to take him seriously as a dangerous main antagonist- level threat after he's been knocked into a cartful of dung by Elsa's snowball.

      Also, official material from Disney is being shown in movie theatres, detailing his family situation and also confirming the map. Sure, it's cheaply-made stuff that's essentially very slightly modified Hans concept art, but still, it's an effort, it's expanding the lore, it's hinting that we'll see him again.


      If Disney meant do be done with Hans, why would they go through all that trouble? A book, detailing his backstory, POV and painting him in a very positive light? Maps, family trees? Did any of the other villains ever get that much stuff dedicated to them? So, yeah. Considering everything it's very likely he'll be back, and that he'll redeem himself somewhat, somehow. Fighting against a mutual enemy, is my personal guess.


      And also, I don't think that'd dilute his message from the first film at all. The fact that no, you shouldn't trust strangers too quickly won't change even if he later has an epiphany and decides to atone for his past actions. It's stupid to claim that once a person has been established or branded as "bad" they should always remain bad and nothing more, no second chances ever, no-one can ever regret their past mistakes and try to change their lives around. That's pretty harsh, and not very Disney, to be honest, considering that forgiveness and second chances and fixing the mistakes you made was a major theme in Frozen.

      I agree with you. It appears that they do want to redeem him. I don't trust Jennifer Lee though. She may not want to redeem Hans. She appears to view him like she views conservative men.
      Yeah, and you'd better not trust Linda Woolverton if she directs the sequel, either, considering how she utterly ruined the Sleeping Beauty franchise with her hatchetjob on Maleficent, not to mention how she utterly butchered Beauty and the Beast just to push a needless feminist message and even went as far as to insult and spread lies about Belle's predecessors (especially Ariel. Like her or not, even you can't deny that Ariel was definitely not the type to just wait for her prince to come or to simply have marriage and love as her goal). Heck, like Jennifer Lee, Linda Woolverton seems to have it out for conservative men considering she for some idiotic reason decided to make Gaston into a hard-working conservative-type who the village idolizes. Honestly, did she REALLY need to make him into a hunter or someone who works hard to get where he's at? Since it's the 18th century, a better fit would be to make him into a Rousseau-esque philosopher.

      In any case, yeah, Hans is most likely going to get redeemed anyhow.

      Woolverton is a feminist like Jennifer Lee. She apparently likes to shame men. Jennifer Lee shamed men by using Hans and the Duke of Weselton. Why would Jennifer Lee want to redeem Hans?
      Now you guys are getting a little sexist here. Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, do create men that they do not shame, like Beast, Phoebus, Simba, Kristoff, Ralph, and Felix. What matters is on the inside and what they do. There is a balance between the type of men they create, whether good or evil.
      I wouldn't be so sure about Beast, actually, considering she basically had Belle come across as blameless for the mess that was the wolf attack and piled all the blame on Beast, winning that argument even, even when it was largely Belle's fault for the events that happened by disobeying his clear stipulation about not entering the West Wing. You would think she would give some acknowledgement that Belle actually WAS at fault for the situation about as much as Beast was, but she didn't. From the way it was handled, it looked more like Belle didn't have anything to blame for it. And somehow we're supposed to think Belle was in the right to basically refuse to come down to dinner even AFTER Beast politely requested twice for her to come down (albeit at the servants' prodding, but still), even when if anything that scene made her look more like an even bigger spoiled brat than Beast was.

      You do have a point regarding Simba, but I'm not entirely sure whether he counts as he's not really human either.

      I can't comment on Hunchback of Notre Dame, though, since I don't think she was even involved in that film. Same with Ralph.

      I guess there's a point taken with Kristoff, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

      Still we shouldn't bash against Linda Woolverton and Jennifer Lee, because doing that makes you look sexist. Feminism isnt about women being better than men and men being weak or villified, or shamed. Feminism means woman being equal with men. EQUAL.
      I don't care what goes on inside your politically correct liberal brain. I stand in opposition to radical feminism. Men like Hans should not be disrespected by radical feminists. I will not yield in that view.
      Me too. I've already had enough attacks from at least one radical feminist for my gender (not to mention said radical feminist actually LYING through her teeth about sufferings women went under before the 1960s, like claiming they were illiterate and unable to get an education before then), anyways, not to mention being told that just because I'm male that automatically means my claims for wanting to help women is automatically suspect.

      And honestly, we definitely know Linda Woolverton at the very least IS a radical feminist considering she not only demonized most of the males in the film (yes, even the Beast was demonized to some extent, considering he got landed with all the blame for that wolf attack even when if anything Belle deserved most of that blame [probably the only blame Beast actually DID deserve was losing control of his temper to such a degree that he smashed furniture]), but she even went as far as to slander and demonize any female characters who even dared implied they actually might want to get married, like referring to Belle's predecessors, especially Ariel, as being weak, insipid, only focusing on marriage and love as their goals, and only waiting for their prince to come and claiming Belle broke that mold (I swear, I'm not making this up). I mean, seriously, Ariel is probably the one DP predecessor to Belle who obviously could not match up to that description anyhow: She was strong-willed, actually went toe-to-toe with a shark, did plenty of badass stuff in the film, actually SAVED her love interest, twice (three times counting the Vanessa incident), and she had formed her goals long before she even was aware of Eric's existence, much less met him. Heck, her goals didn't even necessarily involve marriage and love, just living among humanity. And she didn't "wait for her prince to come," either. If anything, she pursued her dream of becoming human after discovering Eric. Probably the only reason Woolverton would even say such a slanderous statement about Ariel would be because unlike Belle, Ariel actually DID want to marry Eric from the get-go. Even Cinderella and Snow White actually had goals beyond marrying their prince that they strived for (specifically, liberating themselves from their wicked stepfamilies), and they'd definitely have to be pretty strong mentally to put up with the abuse anyhow, not to mention actually flee in Snow White's case. Probably the only DP who actually MIGHT match up with Woolverton's claims 100% is Aurora in the original Sleeping Beauty film, and even that's mostly because she had minimal characterization as it is. And if that's not enough, hints at Woolverton's agenda, especially her poor view on marriage, were oozing through the film. Putting aside the bit where Belle shoved Gaston into a mudpool and took amusement at it (which was unnecessary especially when unlike Aurora, Jasmine, Pocahontas, or even Merida, she wasn't even in an arranged marriage, the proposal was entirely free of her choosing, no prodding from her parents [heck, her dad wasn't even home at the time] yet she still decided to just behave like a jerk to her suitor.), there's also the blonde triplets in the same film. They spent their time crushing on Gaston, are implied to have some agreement to Gaston's view on women being housewives first and foremost, and they're called the Bimbettes (you know, "Bimbos"). Yet there's zero indication they were actually brainless (far from it, they picked up pretty quickly Belle refused Gaston before Gaston seemed to realize she refused him, they also pretty clearly knew Gaston marrying Belle meant they have no shot at him, and it's also implied they realized that Gaston's plan was wrong and didn't support it), nor is there even a hint that they've even slept with Gaston (if anything, Gaston, save for one brief instance where he lifted their bench, spent most of the movie completely ignoring them), and given their obvious infatuation with Gaston, it's extremely unlikely they slept with any of the village males either, meaning that like Belle, they're most likely virgins, and their outfits aren't even as bad as most of the other girls in the film, being very conservatively-dressed even with their busts/cleavage (come on, even Belle wore a similar outfit during the Ballroom sequence). And the way the film was written, we are to assume that they are somehow girls we shouldn't support, despite the fact that we don't see them deliberately doing or supporting any evil plans (heck, if anything, it's [unintentionally] implied they don't seem to have any problem with Belle's father Maurice, aka the local crackpot inventor as the villagers call him, seeing how they don't laugh alongside LeFou and Gaston when mocking Maurice to Belle's face, despite their clearly being within earshot of them). And don't even get me started on what she did with that piece of trash movie Maleficent, which oozed even more with the feminist agenda. Oh, and a bit of a tangent, but for a film that is critically lauded for averting stereotypes, they certainly played up a lot of stereotypes in the film, like Lumiere being the womanizing sex-obsessed Frenchman, the featherduster being the promiscuous French maid, Gaston largely being a dumb muscle, Cogsworth being an uptight British servant, Belle being the brainy brunette (even when, books aside [and even that left much to be desired in the original film since all we get is that she reads fairy tales, not exactly the most advanced literature out there], there were very few instances of her actually USING her brain), and the triplets being the so-called dumb blondes (which is especially bad considering the original fairytale explicitly stated Belle's hair color WAS blonde and it was also made pretty clear she was intelligent). In all honesty, the only character in the film who ISN'T a stereotype in any way was the Beast, probably the only character to actually BE complex (certainly the only one intentionally made complex).

      Based on some of her statements, Jennifer Lee is probably cut from the same cloth, even making similar disparaging remarks about the first four Disney Princesses. Though I must ask, what do you think of Kristoff? I'm not sure how well he was treated (Mom may have watched the film, but I haven't so I genuinely have no eyewitness testimony to offer). I know how Weselton and Hans were treated was just horrible, but I'm not sure about Kristoff (he is male, after all).

      I think Kristoff is a good character. Jennifer Lee seems to have portrayed Kristoff as a hick though. He is like an Appalachian mountain man.

        Loading editor
    • So, I guess this is how you're going to treat them huh? Fine, you win. You're bashing against the very people who have just written animated films that are considered one of the best animated movies of all time, but hey, you'll get what you want.

      Congratulations Joseph8. Guess you'll be able to have a film full of conservative views. And Weedle McHairybug, you could become a great critic for films. I'm pretty sure you'll be happy about it.

      But that's what its ALL about, right?

      CARING ABOUT YOURSELVES.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      So, I guess this is how you're going to treat them huh? Fine, you win. You're bashing against the very people who have just written animated films that are considered one of the best animated movies of all time, but hey, you'll get what you want.

      Congratulations Joseph8. Guess you'll be able to have a film full of conservative views. And Weedle McHairybug, you could become a great critic for films. I'm pretty sure you'll be happy about it.

      But that's what its ALL about, right?

      CARING ABOUT YOURSELVES.

      This thread is about the redemption of Hans.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      They claim that, but my experience with a particularly bad professor made pretty clear that what they claim is not what they actually think in reality. […]

      Uh, you can't generalise the opinions of one lunatic professor stating to be a feminist to be shared by "they" meaning all feminists. That'd be a similar logical fallacy as saying "I was raped by a man once, therefore all men are rapists". Women or feminists aren't some sci-fi hivemind who all think alike and share the same opinions, nor are they somehow collectively responsible for the f*ckery of others. There are many different movements and organisations and ways of thinking within feminism, many conflicting.

      Also in the days of Friedan, De Beauvoir etc. the situation of women was wildly different than now and women really were like second-class citizens, so the discussion was more heated and provocative because the environment, social attitudes and norms, the laws etc were all so different. You have to remember that when reading those texts now, that they were written in that time and situation, intended to provoke a revolution. Which then happened and thankfully led to the current situation, where even women who become stay-at-home housewives still have tons of rights and freedoms women in those times didn't have.


      But, it's all beside the thread topic so I'm sorry for this diversion and I'd rather we not descend into an argument about feminism, just wanted to point that out. I'm sure there are tons of fanatical insane "feminists", not disputing that. 

      So, on the topic of Jen Lee's opinions on Hans; I think she rather likes him, actually. I know she and John Lasseter put a great deal of thought into him and Lee seems to think Hans is very "interesting" due to his sociopathic tendencies (note that she makes references to her own "sociopathic mind", too so I think she's throwing that word around quite freely.) I don't think that  Hans and the Duke being villainous characters is enough grounds to state that Lee et co would hate men, or anything like that, since the movie has several positive male characters like the King, Grand Pabbie, Kristoff, Oaken, Kai etc.

      On Kristoff: well he is an indigenous orphan raised by trolls in a cave, so, you know.

      Also for the love of god please edit your quotes, please ;_;

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      They claim that, but my experience with a particularly bad professor made pretty clear that what they claim is not what they actually think in reality. […]

      Uh, you can't generalise the opinions of one lunatic professor stating to be a feminist to be shared by "they" meaning all feminists. That'd be a similar logical fallacy as saying "I was raped by a man once, therefore all men are rapists". Women or feminists aren't some sci-fi hivemind who all think alike and share the same opinions, nor are they somehow collectively responsible for the f*ckery of others. There are many different movements and organisations and ways of thinking within feminism, many conflicting.

      Also in the days of Friedan, De Beauvoir etc. the situation of women was wildly different than now and women really were like second-class citizens, so the discussion was more heated and provocative because the environment, social attitudes and norms, the laws etc were all so different. You have to remember that when reading those texts now, that they were written in that time and situation, intended to provoke a revolution. Which then happened and thankfully led to the current situation, where even women who become stay-at-home housewives still have tons of rights and freedoms women in those times didn't have.


      But, it's all beside the thread topic so I'm sorry for this diversion and I'd rather we not descend into an argument about feminism, just wanted to point that out. I'm sure there are tons of fanatical insane "feminists", not disputing that. 

      So, on the topic of Jen Lee's opinions on Hans; I think she rather likes him, actually. I know she and John Lasseter put a great deal of thought into him and Lee seems to think Hans is very "interesting" due to his sociopathic tendencies (note that she makes references to her own "sociopathic mind", too so I think she's throwing that word around quite freely.) I don't think that  Hans and the Duke being villainous characters is enough grounds to state that Lee et co would hate men, or anything like that, since the movie has several positive male characters like the King, Grand Pabbie, Kristoff, Oaken, Kai etc.

      On Kristoff: well he is an indigenous orphan raised by trolls in a cave, so, you know.

      Also for the love of god please edit your quotes, please ;_;

      It's not just that professor, though. There were other professors like her, like Richard Barton Palmer who claimed that Christianity invented misogyny and that the 1960s was good because it allowed for free sex and somehow "empowered women". Heck, it's even in feminist papers as well.

      As far as Betty Friedan and de Beauvoir, actually, the situation wasn't even all that different back then. My grandma was actually considered for working for IBM during World War II, largely because she had very good memorization skills and inputting codes. She ultimately decided against it being a permanent position for her because she also knew her husband's Norwegian background and respected that he needed to be the breadwinner of the family. And women getting out had nothing to do with Friedan and de Beauvoir despite how they brag about it. It actually had to do with the invention of the automated washer and dryer eliminating much of the time needed for chores significantly. And BTW, Betty Friedan was NOT a housewife. She lied about that just to get her propaganda pushed. Actually, she was a Soviet apologist who was a huge fangirl of Stalin. And I might as well point out that Simone de Beauvoir is cut from the same cloth, and her idea of empowerment or liberation for women was effectively having them be sexually abused by the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre, even when this causes severe mental and emotional problems later in life. Heck, she was even a pedophile, actually getting fired for corrupting a minor (the only reason she merely got fired instead of having her butt hauled to jail is because her "family" basically pulled a CYA on her and lied on her behalf). Don't believe me? Look at these sources (which also feature plenty of sources as well):


      And anyways, for the overall topic, yeah, Hans is probably going to be redeemed anyhow. The evidence is overwhelming that he will, and his voice actor explicitly stated that he will be redeemed in the future. And quite frankly, her use of "Sociopath" is indeed very loose, considering he really doesn't match all the categories. I'm also irritated that people are claiming that Gaston is a sociopath as well, since he wasn't. A narcissist, sure, but not an actual sociopath. The reprise alone pretty much scratched off at least one of the requirements for a sociopath (being capable of lying as easily as if he were breathing).

        Loading editor
    • Really, the only way I want Hans to return in the sequel is for him to make a cameo or short appearance from the Southern Isles. He honestly doesn't seem like the "redeeming" type of character. Ever since I watched Frozen, I thought his character would be left ambiguous.

        Loading editor
    • Jjuser wrote: Really, the only way I want Hans to return in the sequel is for him to make a cameo or short appearance from the Southern Isles. He honestly doesn't seem like the "redeeming" type of character. Ever since I watched Frozen, I thought his character would be left ambiguous.

      Hans VA already confirmed he's going to be redeemed in the sequel anyways. Doesn't matter what we feel.

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57
      HymnLovaGal57 removed this reply because:
      Redundant post
      21:23, August 1, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • Santino Fontana explained that it was the writers' idea to redeem his character. Yes, it is likely that Hans' character may be redeemed in the future, but it is yet to be officially confirmed by Disney or the voice actor himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGFgYRIXNMs&feature=youtu.be&t=17m12s

      Though he may have said that Hans would likely redeem in the future, he didn't confirm it as a fact. The story will develop throughout time, and we will eventually see what Disney decides to do with Hans' character.

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      Sudists and soceopaths like Hans should not be redeemd. From what I saw he was only ignored by 3 of his 12 brothers and they only did it for 2 years, that dous't sound like abuse to me, it sounds more like sibiling rivalry. Hans did't realy care about the citizens he just cared about being a king. Also Napoleon was bent on conquring all of the old world so I personaly don't see him as the best leader ever (I've heard of better leaders to be honest). Also in order to redeem Hans would have to feel guilt for what he did and that won't happen cause soceopaths don't feel remorse. Also sadists are not heros. Hans was created to show kids why you should be carful around strangers, redeeming him would teach kids that you should trust the monsters in this world.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      Sudists and soceopaths like Hans should not be redeemd. From what I saw he was only ignored by 3 of his 12 brothers and they only did it for 2 years, that dous't sound like abuse to me, it sounds more like sibiling rivalry. Hans did't realy care about the citizens he just cared about being a king. Also Napoleon was bent on conquring all of the old world so I personaly don't see him as the best leader ever (I've heard of better leaders to be honest). Also in order to redeem Hans would have to feel guilt for what he did and that won't happen cause soceopaths don't feel remorse. Also sadists are not heros. Hans was created to show kids why you should be carful around strangers, redeeming him would teach kids that you should trust the monsters in this world.

      First of all, it's "sadist", not "sudist". Second of all, sadists, people who derive pleasure from seeing people suffering, generally stay long enough to ensure the person dies rather than leaving them outright, often committing torturous deeds themselves, not merely leaving them to die. I even gave you plenty of examples on how sadists generally operate (namely, they usually make sure they stick around long enough to watch them die while gloating about it, often doing the deed themselves).

      And BTW, you want a person who genuinely didn't care about the people and just wanted to rule, look at Scar from The Lion King, and we can see how he ended up doing things by making Pride Rock a desolate place. And if you actually WATCHED those Kefka videos, you'd also see a villain who literally didn't even care if his actions killed a lot of people and in fact almost reveled in it.

      I'm not a big fan of Napoleon either, but nonetheless, that doesn't mean he cannot be redeemed anyhow. If Vader could get redeemed from doing far worse things, Hans most certainly could as well. And quite frankly, it would be more useful to abandon Anna much earlier than he did (like, I don't know, when the dignitaries basically suggested he let her freeze in the snow rather than pursue her), especially when he already effectively had control over the kingdom anyway, so I'm doubtful his trying to save Anna really was simply due to it being integral to his plan.

      And BTW, Hans when thrown into that cell looked remorseful. Normally with Sociopaths, they are cursing the heroes for stopping them, like with Jafar when he was sucked into the lamp, or otherwise laughing all the way to the cell, like the Joker.

      EDIT: And for the record, we've already got PLENTY of Disney films that teach against trusting monsters or not to judge people by appearances (heck, the very FIRST Disney full feature animated film Snow White dealt with this message), so having one film go against that does not change anything about the prior films especially when the prior films are given easy access anyhow. And anyways, have you forgotten that The Evil Queen, Ursula, and Gaston teach that message extremely well by themselves? If anything, teaching forgiveness is even better.

        Loading editor
    • Again, not all villains have to follow the usual "villain archetype". It's nice to have a refreshing villain for a change, even if there's a tragic side to him.

        Loading editor
    • Jjuser wrote: Again, not all villains have to follow the usual "villain archetype". It's nice to have a refreshing villain for a change, even if he has a sympathetic side to him.

      Who said anything about following the usual "villain archetype"? I was just saying it's very much possible for Hans to be redeemed, and that there have been plenty of villains who taught against trusting strangers or monsters. Seriously, Wolf91 seems to be under the impression that Hans is the only villain to teach that message when really, it's nothing new under Disney.

        Loading editor
    • Hehe, edited my comment just now ;-)

      Personally, I think it's best if the writers move on in the sequel without having Hans as an integral part of the story line. Hans is interesting as a character, but his previous actions in the first film make it harder to redeem him. I'm not saying that it's not possible, but to me there isn't really a need to redeem Hans. If anything, forgiveness should be taught with a different character, but that's my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Jjuser wrote: Hehe, edited my comment just now ;-)

      Personally, I think it's best if the writers move on in the sequel without having Hans as an integral part of the story line. Hans is interesting as a character, but his previous actions in the first film make it harder to redeem him. I'm not saying that it's not possible, but to me there isn't really a need to redeem Hans. If anything, forgiveness should be taught with a different character, but that's just my opinion.

      Maybe so, but on the other hand, Vader's actions in the Star Wars franchise would make it far more difficult to be redeemed yet even he got redemption, and he did WORSE stuff than Hans did, almost to Frollo's level in fact. Besides, I find it hard to believe that Disney would actually tell his voice actor the sequel would likely redeem him if they don't plan on doing so.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      Sudists and soceopaths like Hans should not be redeemd. From what I saw he was only ignored by 3 of his 12 brothers and they only did it for 2 years, that dous't sound like abuse to me, it sounds more like sibiling rivalry. Hans did't realy care about the citizens he just cared about being a king. Also Napoleon was bent on conquring all of the old world so I personaly don't see him as the best leader ever (I've heard of better leaders to be honest). Also in order to redeem Hans would have to feel guilt for what he did and that won't happen cause soceopaths don't feel remorse. Also sadists are not heros. Hans was created to show kids why you should be carful around strangers, redeeming him would teach kids that you should trust the monsters in this world.

      I doubt you know what a sadist or sociopath are actually like.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Sudists and soceopaths like Hans should not be redeemd. From what I saw he was only ignored by 3 of his 12 brothers and they only did it for 2 years, that dous't sound like abuse to me, it sounds more like sibiling rivalry. Hans did't realy care about the citizens he just cared about being a king. Also Napoleon was bent on conquring all of the old world so I personaly don't see him as the best leader ever (I've heard of better leaders to be honest). Also in order to redeem Hans would have to feel guilt for what he did and that won't happen cause soceopaths don't feel remorse. Also sadists are not heros. Hans was created to show kids why you should be carful around strangers, redeeming him would teach kids that you should trust the monsters in this world.
      First of all, it's "sadist", not "sudist". Second of all, sadists, people who derive pleasure from seeing people suffering, generally stay long enough to ensure the person dies rather than leaving them outright, often committing torturous deeds themselves, not merely leaving them to die. I even gave you plenty of examples on how sadists generally operate (namely, they usually make sure they stick around long enough to watch them die while gloating about it, often doing the deed themselves).

      And BTW, you want a person who genuinely didn't care about the people and just wanted to rule, look at Scar from The Lion King, and we can see how he ended up doing things by making Pride Rock a desolate place. And if you actually WATCHED those Kefka videos, you'd also see a villain who literally didn't even care if his actions killed a lot of people and in fact almost reveled in it.

      I'm not a big fan of Napoleon either, but nonetheless, that doesn't mean he cannot be redeemed anyhow. If Vader could get redeemed from doing far worse things, Hans most certainly could as well. And quite frankly, it would be more useful to abandon Anna much earlier than he did (like, I don't know, when the dignitaries basically suggested he let her freeze in the snow rather than pursue her), especially when he already effectively had control over the kingdom anyway, so I'm doubtful his trying to save Anna really was simply due to it being integral to his plan.

      And BTW, Hans when thrown into that cell looked remorseful. Normally with Sociopaths, they are cursing the heroes for stopping them, like with Jafar when he was sucked into the lamp, or otherwise laughing all the way to the cell, like the Joker.

      EDIT: And for the record, we've already got PLENTY of Disney films that teach against trusting monsters or not to judge people by appearances (heck, the very FIRST Disney full feature animated film Snow White dealt with this message), so having one film go against that does not change anything about the prior films especially when the prior films are given easy access anyhow. And anyways, have you forgotten that The Evil Queen, Ursula, and Gaston teach that message extremely well by themselves? If anything, teaching forgiveness is even better.

      Hans did't wan't to wait any longer to take the thrown so he left before Anna died but the whay he was smiling and taunting Anna while she was dieing in front of him seems pretty sadistic and remamber when he told Elsa that her sister Anna was dead just so she would suffer more, that is another example of how emotionaly sadistic Hans is.

      Hans did't realy care for the people he was just takeing care of them so they would be on his side for when he killed Elsa and what if he succed and Anna and Elsa were dead, then he would't have to worrie about anyone being a compeditor for the thrown, would he still care for the people.

      I don't watch Star Wars so I don't realy know how to respond to that Vader part. When the Dignitarys told him he was all Arendelle had left he relized that he did't have to worrie merrye Anna cause the kingdom was already his, he was secratly hopeing Anna would never return but then to his dissipointment Anna came back alive but he simply taunted her and speed up her frozen heart curse and left her to die all alone and used her death to sentace Elsa to death in order to become king of Arendelle (I know cause I saw the movie).

      Hans did't look remorseful to me and curesing or laughing would't help his situation anyway so why would he do any of thous.

      And their are many many Reformed Characters that already teach forgiveness so redeeming Hans is not even vital in teaching forgiveness. Also teaching kids to be carful around dangours people is extremly important.

        Loading editor
    • If you learn to spell, people will take you more seriously. Until then, your playing psychologist and diagnosing Hans as a sadist means absolutely nothing. Again, I really question whether you know what a sadist is.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Sudists and soceopaths like Hans should not be redeemd. From what I saw he was only ignored by 3 of his 12 brothers and they only did it for 2 years, that dous't sound like abuse to me, it sounds more like sibiling rivalry. Hans did't realy care about the citizens he just cared about being a king. Also Napoleon was bent on conquring all of the old world so I personaly don't see him as the best leader ever (I've heard of better leaders to be honest). Also in order to redeem Hans would have to feel guilt for what he did and that won't happen cause soceopaths don't feel remorse. Also sadists are not heros. Hans was created to show kids why you should be carful around strangers, redeeming him would teach kids that you should trust the monsters in this world.
      First of all, it's "sadist", not "sudist". Second of all, sadists, people who derive pleasure from seeing people suffering, generally stay long enough to ensure the person dies rather than leaving them outright, often committing torturous deeds themselves, not merely leaving them to die. I even gave you plenty of examples on how sadists generally operate (namely, they usually make sure they stick around long enough to watch them die while gloating about it, often doing the deed themselves).

      And BTW, you want a person who genuinely didn't care about the people and just wanted to rule, look at Scar from The Lion King, and we can see how he ended up doing things by making Pride Rock a desolate place. And if you actually WATCHED those Kefka videos, you'd also see a villain who literally didn't even care if his actions killed a lot of people and in fact almost reveled in it.

      I'm not a big fan of Napoleon either, but nonetheless, that doesn't mean he cannot be redeemed anyhow. If Vader could get redeemed from doing far worse things, Hans most certainly could as well. And quite frankly, it would be more useful to abandon Anna much earlier than he did (like, I don't know, when the dignitaries basically suggested he let her freeze in the snow rather than pursue her), especially when he already effectively had control over the kingdom anyway, so I'm doubtful his trying to save Anna really was simply due to it being integral to his plan.

      And BTW, Hans when thrown into that cell looked remorseful. Normally with Sociopaths, they are cursing the heroes for stopping them, like with Jafar when he was sucked into the lamp, or otherwise laughing all the way to the cell, like the Joker.

      EDIT: And for the record, we've already got PLENTY of Disney films that teach against trusting monsters or not to judge people by appearances (heck, the very FIRST Disney full feature animated film Snow White dealt with this message), so having one film go against that does not change anything about the prior films especially when the prior films are given easy access anyhow. And anyways, have you forgotten that The Evil Queen, Ursula, and Gaston teach that message extremely well by themselves? If anything, teaching forgiveness is even better.

      Hans did't wan't to wait any longer to take the thrown so he left before Anna died but the whay he was smiling and taunting Anna while she was dieing in front of him seems pretty sadistic and remamber when he told Elsa that her sister Anna was dead just so she would suffer more, that is another example of how emotionaly sadistic Hans is.

      Hans did't realy care for the people he was just takeing care of them so they would be on his side for when he killed Elsa and what if he succed and Anna and Elsa were dead, then he would't have to worrie about anyone being a compeditor for the thrown, would he still care for the people.

      I don't watch Star Wars so I don't realy know how to respond to that Vader part. When the Dignitarys told him he was all Arendelle had left he relized that he did't have to worrie merrye Anna cause the kingdom was already his, he was secratly hopeing Anna would never return but then to his dissipointment Anna came back alive but he simply taunted her and speed up her frozen heart curse and left her to die all alone and used her death to sentace Elsa to death in order to become king of Arendelle (I know cause I saw the movie).

      Hans did't look remorseful to me and curesing or laughing would't help his situation anyway so why would he do any of thous.

      And their are many many Reformed Characters that already teach forgiveness so redeeming Hans is not even vital in teaching forgiveness. Also teaching kids to be carful around dangours people is extremly important.

      You DO realize one of those reformed characters, Iago, is the same guy who came up with the idea for Jafar to take the throne by marrying Jasmine and then becoming a Black Widower to both her and her dad, right, and pretty obviously had some sadism in the idea? If they could get HIM to redeem, they most certainly can redeem Hans.

      And for the record, why do people assume that not judging books by covers is somehow going to be an important life lesson or that it actually means anything? Let me point out Jean-Paul Sartre: He was a really deformed ugly man and managed to somehow get scores of girls to love him in spite of that, and he also turns out to be a serial womanizer who really loves to take away their virginity before losing interest in them and even doing a lot of bad things to them before casting them aside, even giving explicit and extremely crass details in letters to the closest thing he has to an actual wife, Simone de Beauvoir, whom he frequently harms and betrays as well. Those girls obviously practiced not judging a book by covers with him, were careful, it didn't work. Don't believe me? Read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559137/Dangerous-liaisons-sex-teens-The-story-Sartre-Beauvoir-told-before.html

      EDIT: About that brief comment about Han's fate, clearly you haven't seen how Jafar acted when he was sealed in the lamp, or how Wesker acted when he was about to meet his maker in Resident Evil 5. Heck, I'm doubtful you've seen how the Joker generally acts when arrested.

        Loading editor
    • Heimr Arnadalr wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Sudists and soceopaths like Hans should not be redeemd. From what I saw he was only ignored by 3 of his 12 brothers and they only did it for 2 years, that dous't sound like abuse to me, it sounds more like sibiling rivalry. Hans did't realy care about the citizens he just cared about being a king. Also Napoleon was bent on conquring all of the old world so I personaly don't see him as the best leader ever (I've heard of better leaders to be honest). Also in order to redeem Hans would have to feel guilt for what he did and that won't happen cause soceopaths don't feel remorse. Also sadists are not heros. Hans was created to show kids why you should be carful around strangers, redeeming him would teach kids that you should trust the monsters in this world.

      I doubt you know what a sadist or sociopath are actually like.

      I know what they are

      Sadist's are people who get plasure from seeing others in pain. They enjoy mentaly, physicly or even sexualy tormanting others. They also like to watch and smile at other people's pain and degradation.

      Soceopaths are people who are not capable loveing anyone other then themselfs. They never feel remorse for hurting others. They are very good at manipulating others and they can be very ruthless.

        Loading editor
    • I'm glad you're not a real psychologist, considering that horrible application of those terms to Hans.

      For the record, I'm a diagnosed sociopath and have never thought of hurting anyone, so calling someone a sociopath isn't enough to discount their redemptive capacity.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Sudists and soceopaths like Hans should not be redeemd. From what I saw he was only ignored by 3 of his 12 brothers and they only did it for 2 years, that dous't sound like abuse to me, it sounds more like sibiling rivalry. Hans did't realy care about the citizens he just cared about being a king. Also Napoleon was bent on conquring all of the old world so I personaly don't see him as the best leader ever (I've heard of better leaders to be honest). Also in order to redeem Hans would have to feel guilt for what he did and that won't happen cause soceopaths don't feel remorse. Also sadists are not heros. Hans was created to show kids why you should be carful around strangers, redeeming him would teach kids that you should trust the monsters in this world.
      First of all, it's "sadist", not "sudist". Second of all, sadists, people who derive pleasure from seeing people suffering, generally stay long enough to ensure the person dies rather than leaving them outright, often committing torturous deeds themselves, not merely leaving them to die. I even gave you plenty of examples on how sadists generally operate (namely, they usually make sure they stick around long enough to watch them die while gloating about it, often doing the deed themselves).

      And BTW, you want a person who genuinely didn't care about the people and just wanted to rule, look at Scar from The Lion King, and we can see how he ended up doing things by making Pride Rock a desolate place. And if you actually WATCHED those Kefka videos, you'd also see a villain who literally didn't even care if his actions killed a lot of people and in fact almost reveled in it.

      I'm not a big fan of Napoleon either, but nonetheless, that doesn't mean he cannot be redeemed anyhow. If Vader could get redeemed from doing far worse things, Hans most certainly could as well. And quite frankly, it would be more useful to abandon Anna much earlier than he did (like, I don't know, when the dignitaries basically suggested he let her freeze in the snow rather than pursue her), especially when he already effectively had control over the kingdom anyway, so I'm doubtful his trying to save Anna really was simply due to it being integral to his plan.

      And BTW, Hans when thrown into that cell looked remorseful. Normally with Sociopaths, they are cursing the heroes for stopping them, like with Jafar when he was sucked into the lamp, or otherwise laughing all the way to the cell, like the Joker.

      EDIT: And for the record, we've already got PLENTY of Disney films that teach against trusting monsters or not to judge people by appearances (heck, the very FIRST Disney full feature animated film Snow White dealt with this message), so having one film go against that does not change anything about the prior films especially when the prior films are given easy access anyhow. And anyways, have you forgotten that The Evil Queen, Ursula, and Gaston teach that message extremely well by themselves? If anything, teaching forgiveness is even better.

      Hans did't wan't to wait any longer to take the thrown so he left before Anna died but the whay he was smiling and taunting Anna while she was dieing in front of him seems pretty sadistic and remamber when he told Elsa that her sister Anna was dead just so she would suffer more, that is another example of how emotionaly sadistic Hans is.

      Hans did't realy care for the people he was just takeing care of them so they would be on his side for when he killed Elsa and what if he succed and Anna and Elsa were dead, then he would't have to worrie about anyone being a compeditor for the thrown, would he still care for the people.

      I don't watch Star Wars so I don't realy know how to respond to that Vader part. When the Dignitarys told him he was all Arendelle had left he relized that he did't have to worrie merrye Anna cause the kingdom was already his, he was secratly hopeing Anna would never return but then to his dissipointment Anna came back alive but he simply taunted her and speed up her frozen heart curse and left her to die all alone and used her death to sentace Elsa to death in order to become king of Arendelle (I know cause I saw the movie).

      Hans did't look remorseful to me and curesing or laughing would't help his situation anyway so why would he do any of thous.

      And their are many many Reformed Characters that already teach forgiveness so redeeming Hans is not even vital in teaching forgiveness. Also teaching kids to be carful around dangours people is extremly important.

      You DO realize one of those reformed characters, Iago, is the same guy who came up with the idea for Jafar to take the throne by marrying Jasmine and then becoming a Black Widower to both her and her dad, right, and pretty obviously had some sadism in the idea? If they could get HIM to redeem, they most certainly can redeem Hans.

      And for the record, why do people assume that not judging books by covers is somehow going to be an important life lesson or that it actually means anything? Let me point out Jean-Paul Sartre: He was a really deformed ugly man and managed to somehow get scores of girls to love him in spite of that, and he also turns out to be a serial womanizer who really loves to take away their virginity before losing interest in them and even doing a lot of bad things to them before casting them aside, even giving explicit and extremely crass details in letters to the closest thing he has to an actual wife, Simone de Beauvoir, whom he frequently harms and betrays as well. Those girls obviously practiced not judging a book by covers with him, were careful, it didn't work. Don't believe me? Read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559137/Dangerous-liaisons-sex-teens-The-story-Sartre-Beauvoir-told-before.html

      EDIT: About that brief comment about Han's fate, clearly you haven't seen how Jafar acted when he was sealed in the lamp, or how Wesker acted when he was about to meet his maker in Resident Evil 5. Heck, I'm doubtful you've seen how the Joker generally acts when arrested.

      Why would Disney Have to redeem Hans when they already have more then enough redeemd charecters.

      So you think that because that bad person was ugly we Should judge a book by it's cover.

      No I have't seen thous but I have seen SVU and Investigation Discovery so I know a thing or two about Soceopaths.

        Loading editor
    • Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      I'm glad you're not a real psychologist, considering that horrible application of those terms to Hans.

      For the record, I'm a diagnosed sociopath and have never thought of hurting anyone, so calling someone a sociopath isn't enough to discount their redemptive capacity.

      I know about Soceopaths and Sadists cause I've been watching Investigation Discovery for years know.

      I don't know if your kidding or nor but If your serious then you simply just haven't hurt anyone Yet.

        Loading editor
    • Wow! You watch television?! Someone give this guy a psychology degree right now. //endsarcasm

      I have no intention of hurting anybody but thank you for judging me like that.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      I'm glad you're not a real psychologist, considering that horrible application of those terms to Hans.

      For the record, I'm a diagnosed sociopath and have never thought of hurting anyone, so calling someone a sociopath isn't enough to discount their redemptive capacity.

      I know about Soceopaths and Sadists cause I've been watching Investigation Discovery for years know.

      I don't know if your kidding or nor but If your serious then you simply just haven't hurt anyone Yet.

      > "I know about soceopaths"

        Loading editor
    • ^Lol exactly.

        Loading editor
    • Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      ^Lol exactly.

      He's hilarious, ain't he?? xD

        Loading editor
    • TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      ^Lol exactly.
      He's hilarious, ain't he?? xD

      Are you refering to Wolf 91? Because i firmly agree with him that Hans is a sociopath and a sadist. Now please stop trying to bully us with the notion of Hans being the opposite. Its getting on our nerves.

        Loading editor
    • Are you refering to me? Because i firmly believe that Hans is not a sociopath and a sadist. Now please stop trying to bully us with the notion of Hans being the opposite. Its getting on our nerves.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      ^Lol exactly.
      He's hilarious, ain't he?? xD

      Are you refering to Wolf 91? Because i firmly agree with him that Hans is a sociopath and a sadist. Now please stop trying to bully us with the notion of Hans being the opposite. Its getting on our nerves.

      Hans is absolutely not a sadist.

        Loading editor
    • ResonX wrote: Hans is absolutely not a sadist.

      Though he could become one if his life gets bad enough and he makes the wrong choices, but I doubt his character would go through something that dark :P

        Loading editor
    • ResonX wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      ^Lol exactly.
      He's hilarious, ain't he?? xD
      Are you refering to Wolf 91? Because i firmly agree with him that Hans is a sociopath and a sadist. Now please stop trying to bully us with the notion of Hans being the opposite. Its getting on our nerves.

      Hans is absolutely not a sadist.

      If he's not a sadist, then why was he smiling with glee while he was taunting the dying Anna, and when he was about to decapitate Elsa?

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      ResonX wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      ^Lol exactly.
      He's hilarious, ain't he?? xD
      Are you refering to Wolf 91? Because i firmly agree with him that Hans is a sociopath and a sadist. Now please stop trying to bully us with the notion of Hans being the opposite. Its getting on our nerves.

      Hans is absolutely not a sadist.

      If he's not a sadist, then why was he smiling with glee while he was taunting the dying Anna, and when he was about to decapitate Elsa?

      Mainly because what he had wanted all his life and was doing these horrible things to accomplish was coming to fruition and he believed no one could stop him.

        Loading editor
    • ResonX wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      ResonX wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      TRIMC 95 wrote:
      Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      ^Lol exactly.
      He's hilarious, ain't he?? xD
      Are you refering to Wolf 91? Because i firmly agree with him that Hans is a sociopath and a sadist. Now please stop trying to bully us with the notion of Hans being the opposite. Its getting on our nerves.
      Hans is absolutely not a sadist.
      If he's not a sadist, then why was he smiling with glee while he was taunting the dying Anna, and when he was about to decapitate Elsa?

      Mainly because what he had wanted all his life and was doing these horrible things to accomplish was coming to fruition and he believed no one could stop him.

      That still cements him as an evil character.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      That still cements him as an evil character.

      I never said he wasn't evil, I said he wasn't a sadist. A sadist goes out of their way to harm people for their own sick enjoyment. Everything Hans did was for a clear goal which he had the right/excuse to want, but not the right to do horrible things to achieve.

      And BTW, a true sociopath is actually LESS likely to be a sadist, because they LACK empathy entirely, whereas sadism requires the ACTIVE OPPOSITE of empathy.

        Loading editor
    • To go on the record: I would NOT mind if they don't redeem Hans insomuch as not bringing him back at all, but I WOULD mind if they brought him back as a villain again and went out of the way to cement him as irredeemable. That would be both mean-spirited and lazy.

        Loading editor
    • IMG 5729-1-
      Hans has a shell shocked expression on his face when Anna's horse returns that lasts only a few frames and no one is watching him. Even the audience can barely see it.He is capable of intense emotion.
        Loading editor
    • That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian Today

      Most likely it will happen in the second film.

        Loading editor
    • Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian Today

      Most likely it will happen in the second film.

      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian Today

      Most likely it will happen in the second film.

      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.

      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.

      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.

      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  

      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

      What, you think Frozen's the ONLY Disney film to teach that? It's not. If anything, Snow White taught that message far better than Frozen ever could with Snow White basically getting herself poisoned from the peddler who was the Evil Queen in disguise, and the peddler form WAS a stranger there, not to mention a sadist and a sociopath. Also Sleeping Beauty as well and the scene for the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin involving Jafar's beggar form.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

      What, you think Frozen's the ONLY Disney film to teach that? It's not. If anything, Snow White taught that message far better than Frozen ever could with Snow White basically getting herself poisoned from the peddler who was the Evil Queen in disguise, and the peddler form WAS a stranger there, not to mention a sadist and a sociopath. Also Sleeping Beauty as well and the scene for the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin involving Jafar's beggar form.

      Wolf 91's referring to the warning about falling in love at first sight with someone you don't know. All these characters you mentioned (the peddler from Snow White, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, and Jafar's beggar form in Aladdin), it's so blatantly obvious, even to the audience, that they were evil right from the get go. Wanna know what makes it obvious? Its their expressions and the body movements.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

      What, you think Frozen's the ONLY Disney film to teach that? It's not. If anything, Snow White taught that message far better than Frozen ever could with Snow White basically getting herself poisoned from the peddler who was the Evil Queen in disguise, and the peddler form WAS a stranger there, not to mention a sadist and a sociopath. Also Sleeping Beauty as well and the scene for the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin involving Jafar's beggar form.

      Wolf 91's referring to the warning about falling in love at first sight with someone you don't know. All these characters you mentioned (the peddler from Snow White, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, and Jafar's beggar form in Aladdin), it's so blatantly obvious, even to the audience, that they were evil right from the get go. Wanna know what makes it obvious? Its their expressions and the body movements.

      To the audience, yes, but not to the characters they interacted with (Snow White helped out that peddler, Aladdin agreed to trust the beggar form), the only exception being Belle and Gaston (that's the only instance where she did in effect help Gaston despite knowing full well how Gaston's truly like, and that's more due to poor writing). And quite honestly, I think showing characters who fall for guys who are obviously evil and then paying the price is far more of a message learning experience than having a person just find a guy who actually did seem decent yet turn them into a bad guy at the last minute, especially when that comes across as too post-modern.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

      What, you think Frozen's the ONLY Disney film to teach that? It's not. If anything, Snow White taught that message far better than Frozen ever could with Snow White basically getting herself poisoned from the peddler who was the Evil Queen in disguise, and the peddler form WAS a stranger there, not to mention a sadist and a sociopath. Also Sleeping Beauty as well and the scene for the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin involving Jafar's beggar form.

      Wolf 91's referring to the warning about falling in love at first sight with someone you don't know. All these characters you mentioned (the peddler from Snow White, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, and Jafar's beggar form in Aladdin), it's so blatantly obvious, even to the audience, that they were evil right from the get go. Wanna know what makes it obvious? Its their expressions and the body movements.

      To the audience, yes, but not to the characters they interacted with (Snow White helped out that peddler, Aladdin agreed to trust the beggar form), the only exception being Belle and Gaston (that's the only instance where she did in effect help Gaston despite knowing full well how Gaston's truly like, and that's more due to poor writing). And quite honestly, I think showing characters who fall for guys who are obviously evil and then paying the price is far more of a message learning experience than having a person just find a guy who actually did seem decent yet turn them into a bad guy at the last minute, especially when that comes across as too post-modern.

      But then it will be boring for the audience. They want to be surprised.

      And it seems to me that you, and Joseph8 only care about yourselves, and not about anyone else.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

      What, you think Frozen's the ONLY Disney film to teach that? It's not. If anything, Snow White taught that message far better than Frozen ever could with Snow White basically getting herself poisoned from the peddler who was the Evil Queen in disguise, and the peddler form WAS a stranger there, not to mention a sadist and a sociopath. Also Sleeping Beauty as well and the scene for the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin involving Jafar's beggar form.

      Wolf 91's referring to the warning about falling in love at first sight with someone you don't know. All these characters you mentioned (the peddler from Snow White, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, and Jafar's beggar form in Aladdin), it's so blatantly obvious, even to the audience, that they were evil right from the get go. Wanna know what makes it obvious? Its their expressions and the body movements.

      To the audience, yes, but not to the characters they interacted with (Snow White helped out that peddler, Aladdin agreed to trust the beggar form), the only exception being Belle and Gaston (that's the only instance where she did in effect help Gaston despite knowing full well how Gaston's truly like, and that's more due to poor writing). And quite honestly, I think showing characters who fall for guys who are obviously evil and then paying the price is far more of a message learning experience than having a person just find a guy who actually did seem decent yet turn them into a bad guy at the last minute, especially when that comes across as too post-modern.

      But then it will be boring for the audience. They want to be surprised.

      And it seems to me that you, and Joseph8 only care about yourselves, and not about anyone else.

      Says who? If it truly was that boring to go that route, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and the like would have been box office bombs. And besides, they tried the route you described with Frozen in Metal Gear Solid 2, and most people didn't exactly like that game, and they certainly didn't in Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain.

        Loading editor
    • I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie. Hans lost the only chance he has have to be king, free from his horrible family and finally accepted from someone (a kingdom, in fact).

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.

      I think that he can understand alone his mistake, but without changing completely himself. He can begin to change, but he can't became a better person alone. He can be confused, and in trouble with himself. Not completely sure which way to follow.

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

      What, you think Frozen's the ONLY Disney film to teach that? It's not. If anything, Snow White taught that message far better than Frozen ever could with Snow White basically getting herself poisoned from the peddler who was the Evil Queen in disguise, and the peddler form WAS a stranger there, not to mention a sadist and a sociopath. Also Sleeping Beauty as well and the scene for the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin involving Jafar's beggar form.

      Wolf 91's referring to the warning about falling in love at first sight with someone you don't know. All these characters you mentioned (the peddler from Snow White, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, and Jafar's beggar form in Aladdin), it's so blatantly obvious, even to the audience, that they were evil right from the get go. Wanna know what makes it obvious? Its their expressions and the body movements.

      To the audience, yes, but not to the characters they interacted with (Snow White helped out that peddler, Aladdin agreed to trust the beggar form), the only exception being Belle and Gaston (that's the only instance where she did in effect help Gaston despite knowing full well how Gaston's truly like, and that's more due to poor writing). And quite honestly, I think showing characters who fall for guys who are obviously evil and then paying the price is far more of a message learning experience than having a person just find a guy who actually did seem decent yet turn them into a bad guy at the last minute, especially when that comes across as too post-modern.

      But then it will be boring for the audience. They want to be surprised.

      And it seems to me that you, and Joseph8 only care about yourselves, and not about anyone else.

      Says who? If it truly was that boring to go that route, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and the like would have been box office bombs. And besides, they tried the route you described with Frozen in Metal Gear Solid 2, and most people didn't exactly like that game, and they certainly didn't in Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain.

      But look at how much money Frozen made compared to Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, and The little mermaid. It made a billion dollars! And the reason why the frozen crew made Hans this way is because they want the audience to see things from Anna's perspective, and that they want us to become just as betrayed as Anna was when Hans revealed his evil nature.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Hilla755 wrote:
      That's exactly what I've read on the Internet: 'Frozen 2' release date, plot spoilers: Prince Hans to help Elsa and Anna save Arendelle? | Christian News on Christian TodayMost likely it will happen in the second film.
      If they redeem Hans it will cause an uproar of angry fans because last time I checked Hans is considerd to be one of Disney's most evil/hated villains.
      Never stopped them from redeeming Anastasia and Iago, and the latter was the one who came up with the idea for Jafar to essentially act as a black widower to get access to the throne.
      Was Iago as hated as Hans? Also part of the reason Hans was created was to help teach kids about how dangorus strangers can be and that just because someone seems nice and trustworthey dous't mean they are. Redeeming him would go aganst that important saying 'Fool Me Once Shame on You, Fool Me Twice Shame on Me'.  
      Snow White taught that same lesson as well, so did Sleeping Beauty (don't forget, Maleficent DID enter Aurora's room), and even Beauty and the Beast did the same. You can also argue that Jafar's beggar form taught that very same lesson as well. Hans being redeemed would NOT ruin that message at all.

      Yes it would. Redeeming him would tell little children that you can trust Soceopaths and Sadist's wich you can not.

      What, you think Frozen's the ONLY Disney film to teach that? It's not. If anything, Snow White taught that message far better than Frozen ever could with Snow White basically getting herself poisoned from the peddler who was the Evil Queen in disguise, and the peddler form WAS a stranger there, not to mention a sadist and a sociopath. Also Sleeping Beauty as well and the scene for the Cave of Wonders in Aladdin involving Jafar's beggar form.

      Wolf 91's referring to the warning about falling in love at first sight with someone you don't know. All these characters you mentioned (the peddler from Snow White, Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, and Jafar's beggar form in Aladdin), it's so blatantly obvious, even to the audience, that they were evil right from the get go. Wanna know what makes it obvious? Its their expressions and the body movements.

      To the audience, yes, but not to the characters they interacted with (Snow White helped out that peddler, Aladdin agreed to trust the beggar form), the only exception being Belle and Gaston (that's the only instance where she did in effect help Gaston despite knowing full well how Gaston's truly like, and that's more due to poor writing). And quite honestly, I think showing characters who fall for guys who are obviously evil and then paying the price is far more of a message learning experience than having a person just find a guy who actually did seem decent yet turn them into a bad guy at the last minute, especially when that comes across as too post-modern.

      But then it will be boring for the audience. They want to be surprised.

      And it seems to me that you, and Joseph8 only care about yourselves, and not about anyone else.

      Says who? If it truly was that boring to go that route, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and the like would have been box office bombs. And besides, they tried the route you described with Frozen in Metal Gear Solid 2, and most people didn't exactly like that game, and they certainly didn't in Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain.

      But look at how much money Frozen made compared to Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, and The little mermaid. It made a billion dollars! And the reason why the frozen crew made Hans this way is because they want the audience to see things from Anna's perspective, and that they want us to become just as betrayed as Anna was when Hans revealed his evil nature.

      Snow White actually was the start of Disney, and The Little Mermaid was in effect what saved Disney as well, so don't underestimate them. Besides, have you considered inflation may be another issue with that? Avatar made a lot of dough as well, about as much as Frozen did, yet people barely even remember it.

        Loading editor
    • Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:
      Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

      Spot-on.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

      This is what a lot of haters don't want to understand. I think about this way of redemption for two reasons:

      1- because is the only way to convince the audience. In other ways, the public would no trust him and it would react badly to such redemption would be made;

      2- because it would be consistent to how Frozen shows and considers the characters, with realism and freshness.

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57
      HymnLovaGal57 removed this reply because:
      ^.^" whoops
      01:39, January 17, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • HymnLovaGal57 wrote:
      NO HANS IS EVIL HE IS NO GOOD, EW! hans can go suck on poo

      That's right Hans is a Soceopath and a Sadist.

        Loading editor
    • So boring -_- He is a fictional character,

      You all are so dramatic, and exaggerated.


      Let us alone.

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57
      HymnLovaGal57 removed this reply because:
      DERP
      01:05, January 17, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Vilivi wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

      I see your point, and I do think that Hans will most likely be redeemed thanks to what his actor stated regarding a potential sequel. Although I don't necessarily agree with your last point regarding bad guys due to it effectively implying that bad guys don't act like that in real life, as there actually are quite a few bad guys in real life who do act EXACTLY like that (you know, "the bad guys do[ing] bad things know they're the baddies and love it anyways because muahahahaha I love being evil."). I can name even one such real life bad guy: The Marquis de Sade (you should be familiar with him, he's the namesake for "sadism" and that guy who existed during the French Revolution). He actually said, and I quote, "Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell, and kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change." Another person I can name who fit that bill is Karl Marx, father of Communism, who basically advocated openly for Revolutionary Terror and that they are obliged to reenact the year 1793 (Reign of Terror) once they were at the helm, and even drooled over the possibility of causing enough bloodshed to make even the Reign of Terror pale by comparison. Did I mention that Marx actually wrote love poems to a certain evil figure in religious texts? I can also cite other, minor real life figures such as SS-Oberführer Oskar Dirlewanger, who also had similar traits in personality and even physical to the Red Skull (in fact, this as well as eerily mirrored espionage exploits by SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich and his close colleague SS-Brigadeführer Walther Schellenberg for Red Skull was entirely coincidental, as the writers for Captain America simply envisioned a cartoonish supervillain type, clearly being unaware that what Red Skull did actually WAS done by various Nazi people in real life).

      But as I said, if Disney's going to redeem him, might as well let him be redeemed.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

      I see your point, and I do think that Hans will most likely be redeemed thanks to what his actor stated regarding a potential sequel. Although I don't necessarily agree with your last point regarding bad guys due to it effectively implying that bad guys don't act like that in real life, as there actually are quite a few bad guys in real life who do act EXACTLY like that (you know, "the bad guys do[ing] bad things know they're the baddies and love it anyways because muahahahaha I love being evil."). I can name even one such real life bad guy: The Marquis de Sade (you should be familiar with him, he's the namesake for "sadism" and that guy who existed during the French Revolution). He actually said, and I quote, "Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell, and kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change." Another person I can name who fit that bill is Karl Marx, father of Communism, who basically advocated openly for Revolutionary Terror and that they are obliged to reenact the year 1793 (Reign of Terror) once they were at the helm, and even drooled over the possibility of causing enough bloodshed to make even the Reign of Terror pale by comparison. Did I mention that Marx actually wrote love poems to a certain evil figure in religious texts? I can also cite other, minor real life figures such as SS-Oberführer Oskar Dirlewanger, who also had similar traits in personality and even physical to the Red Skull (in fact, this as well as eerily mirrored espionage exploits by SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich and his close colleague SS-Brigadeführer Walther Schellenberg for Red Skull was entirely coincidental, as the writers for Captain America simply envisioned a cartoonish supervillain type, clearly being unaware that what Red Skull did actually WAS done by various Nazi people in real life).

      But as I said, if Disney's going to redeem him, might as well let him be redeemed.


      Surely is a better idea, than leaving him as a bad guy (a ridiculous villain, from how he is treated in the ending of the movie, and in Frozen Fever). Moreover, a revenge would be really not useful, practically: no character development. And... people never seen the other Disney sequels? In all of them, the villain, or someone affiliated, wants revenge for the previous defeat. So, really, a redemption is the only way. It has a lot of advantage for the character, the plot and Disney itself. I've noticed how Hans has a lot of hints (direct, or overshadowed) in the movie, which refer to a side of him not shown. I think that the directors've always had the idea to show Hans's past in a possible sequel, and, probably, redeem him. Voluntarily, in the movie he never explains his motivations, why he wants to be king, the reasons. He has never said something to make understandable his greed for power and his complete character (specially, for a movie like Frozen). Moreover, with a return, during a redemption arc, the other characters could have a more interesting situation, than the classic There is a villain, so we have only to face it, because Hans can introduce doubts and difficulties, because of what he did.

        Loading editor
    • Oh no a Communist! we don't need no more sinners!
      Kevin Screaming

      oh no sinners!

        Loading editor
    • Luke 2.0 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

      I see your point, and I do think that Hans will most likely be redeemed thanks to what his actor stated regarding a potential sequel. Although I don't necessarily agree with your last point regarding bad guys due to it effectively implying that bad guys don't act like that in real life, as there actually are quite a few bad guys in real life who do act EXACTLY like that (you know, "the bad guys do[ing] bad things know they're the baddies and love it anyways because muahahahaha I love being evil."). I can name even one such real life bad guy: The Marquis de Sade (you should be familiar with him, he's the namesake for "sadism" and that guy who existed during the French Revolution). He actually said, and I quote, "Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell, and kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change." Another person I can name who fit that bill is Karl Marx, father of Communism, who basically advocated openly for Revolutionary Terror and that they are obliged to reenact the year 1793 (Reign of Terror) once they were at the helm, and even drooled over the possibility of causing enough bloodshed to make even the Reign of Terror pale by comparison. Did I mention that Marx actually wrote love poems to a certain evil figure in religious texts? I can also cite other, minor real life figures such as SS-Oberführer Oskar Dirlewanger, who also had similar traits in personality and even physical to the Red Skull (in fact, this as well as eerily mirrored espionage exploits by SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich and his close colleague SS-Brigadeführer Walther Schellenberg for Red Skull was entirely coincidental, as the writers for Captain America simply envisioned a cartoonish supervillain type, clearly being unaware that what Red Skull did actually WAS done by various Nazi people in real life).

      But as I said, if Disney's going to redeem him, might as well let him be redeemed.

      Surely is a better idea, than leaving him as a bad guy (a ridiculous villain, from how he is treated in the ending of the movie, and in Frozen Fever). Moreover, a revenge would be really not useful, practically: no character development. And... people never seen the other Disney sequels? In all of them, the villain, or someone affiliated, wants revenge for the previous defeat. So, really, a redemption is the only way. It has a lot of advantage for the character, the plot and Disney itself. I've noticed how Hans has a lot of hints (direct, or overshadowed) in the movie, which refer to a side of him not shown. I think that the directors've always had the idea to show Hans's past in a possible sequel, and, probably, redeem him. Voluntarily, in the movie he never explains his motivations, why he wants to be king, the reasons. He has never said something to make understandable his greed for power and his complete character (specially, for a movie like Frozen). Moreover, with a return, during a redemption arc, the other characters could have a more interesting situation, than the classic There is a villain, so we have only to face it, because Hans can introduce doubts and difficulties, because of what he did.

      Remamber Hans is one of disney's most hated/evil villions. If Disney redeemd him it would cause an uproar of angry fans.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf91 wrote: Remamber Hans is one of disney's most hated/evil villions. If Disney redeemd him it would cause an uproar of angry fans.

      Kevin Screaming

      No another sinner!

        Loading editor
    • Heimr Arnadalr wrote:
      Wow! You watch television?! Someone give this guy a psychology degree right now. //endsarcasm

      I have no intention of hurting anybody but thank you for judging me like that.

      The shows I watch are documentarys and you can learn alot from documentarys.

      If you are really a Soceopath then one day you are going to cause someone out their a world of grif just like every other Soceopath the world has ever known has done.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

      I see your point, and I do think that Hans will most likely be redeemed thanks to what his actor stated regarding a potential sequel. Although I don't necessarily agree with your last point regarding bad guys due to it effectively implying that bad guys don't act like that in real life, as there actually are quite a few bad guys in real life who do act EXACTLY like that (you know, "the bad guys do[ing] bad things know they're the baddies and love it anyways because muahahahaha I love being evil."). I can name even one such real life bad guy: The Marquis de Sade (you should be familiar with him, he's the namesake for "sadism" and that guy who existed during the French Revolution). He actually said, and I quote, "Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell, and kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change." Another person I can name who fit that bill is Karl Marx, father of Communism, who basically advocated openly for Revolutionary Terror and that they are obliged to reenact the year 1793 (Reign of Terror) once they were at the helm, and even drooled over the possibility of causing enough bloodshed to make even the Reign of Terror pale by comparison. Did I mention that Marx actually wrote love poems to a certain evil figure in religious texts? I can also cite other, minor real life figures such as SS-Oberführer Oskar Dirlewanger, who also had similar traits in personality and even physical to the Red Skull (in fact, this as well as eerily mirrored espionage exploits by SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich and his close colleague SS-Brigadeführer Walther Schellenberg for Red Skull was entirely coincidental, as the writers for Captain America simply envisioned a cartoonish supervillain type, clearly being unaware that what Red Skull did actually WAS done by various Nazi people in real life).

      But as I said, if Disney's going to redeem him, might as well let him be redeemed.

      Surely is a better idea, than leaving him as a bad guy (a ridiculous villain, from how he is treated in the ending of the movie, and in Frozen Fever). Moreover, a revenge would be really not useful, practically: no character development. And... people never seen the other Disney sequels? In all of them, the villain, or someone affiliated, wants revenge for the previous defeat. So, really, a redemption is the only way. It has a lot of advantage for the character, the plot and Disney itself. I've noticed how Hans has a lot of hints (direct, or overshadowed) in the movie, which refer to a side of him not shown. I think that the directors've always had the idea to show Hans's past in a possible sequel, and, probably, redeem him. Voluntarily, in the movie he never explains his motivations, why he wants to be king, the reasons. He has never said something to make understandable his greed for power and his complete character (specially, for a movie like Frozen). Moreover, with a return, during a redemption arc, the other characters could have a more interesting situation, than the classic There is a villain, so we have only to face it, because Hans can introduce doubts and difficulties, because of what he did.

      Remamber Hans is one of disney's most hated/evil villions. If Disney redeemd him it would cause an uproar of angry fans.

      Funny, that never stopped Disney from redeeming Maleficent in her feature film, and she's probably one of, if not THE most hated/evil villain in the overall franchise.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:
      I think that a lot of people belives that "Hans's redemption" means that he will return as the "good prince" he was like for the great part of the first movie.

      […]

      A thing is being evil because you feel well with yourself on this way, because you don't take care of none and so you will continue on this way. An other is being evil for necessity and because you are in a situation that pushes you on this way of being.

      Hans was evil during the events of the movie, this is official. But this doesn't mean that he can't understand his mistake, time after.[…]

      The redemption arc for Hans could be not about "I want to redeem myself from my mistakes" but "trying to understand the right and the wrong, and, on this way, became a better person".

      Fighting against your own demons

      Those are great points. I don't think anyone who is hoping for Hans' redemption is suggesting that he should just appear the same as he was at the end of Frozen, and badabing just be forgiven for everything because he says sorry lol. Also it wouldn't mean that he wants to be forgiven because it sucks having to shovel manure, and would just make himself seem nice so people would forgive him. That's not proper redemption.

      Proper redemption would be going through some severe character development, looking at yourself, your choices, your worldview, and experiencing a fundamental shift where you realise that you've been in the wrong, that what you believed was right and how the world works is actually wrong, and want to change (and do change) for yourself, because the thought process has also changed who you are.

      I feel this kind of redemption would be especially important, because evil in real life isn't like with traditional villains, who are obviously, blatantly "evil" and know it themselves and are content with being evil. In real life, the villains are like Hans; they believe they are in the right, they think they're the heroes of the story, they believe they're fighting for a good cause or that circumstances somehow justify their actions.

      They don't stop to critically evaluate their actions, because they believe that well, if I think that I'm a good guy, I am, and therefore I can't do bad things because I believe my actions to be justified. This is a dangerous logic that leads to a lot of horrible things. This is why it's important to show how it's important to critically look at yourself and your actions, because otherwise you can become blinded by your own emotions and goals and become the villain, almost accidentally. Like Hans.


      And you don't get that very important lesson from traditional stories where the good guys are good and believe themselves to be good and do only good things because everything is justified since they're the good guys, and the bad guys doing bad things know they're the baddies of the story and love it anyway because muahahahaha I love being evil.

      I see your point, and I do think that Hans will most likely be redeemed thanks to what his actor stated regarding a potential sequel. Although I don't necessarily agree with your last point regarding bad guys due to it effectively implying that bad guys don't act like that in real life, as there actually are quite a few bad guys in real life who do act EXACTLY like that (you know, "the bad guys do[ing] bad things know they're the baddies and love it anyways because muahahahaha I love being evil."). I can name even one such real life bad guy: The Marquis de Sade (you should be familiar with him, he's the namesake for "sadism" and that guy who existed during the French Revolution). He actually said, and I quote, "Imperious, choleric, irascible, extreme in everything, with a dissolute imagination the like of which has never been seen, atheistic to the point of fanaticism, there you have me in a nutshell, and kill me again or take me as I am, for I shall not change." Another person I can name who fit that bill is Karl Marx, father of Communism, who basically advocated openly for Revolutionary Terror and that they are obliged to reenact the year 1793 (Reign of Terror) once they were at the helm, and even drooled over the possibility of causing enough bloodshed to make even the Reign of Terror pale by comparison. Did I mention that Marx actually wrote love poems to a certain evil figure in religious texts? I can also cite other, minor real life figures such as SS-Oberführer Oskar Dirlewanger, who also had similar traits in personality and even physical to the Red Skull (in fact, this as well as eerily mirrored espionage exploits by SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich and his close colleague SS-Brigadeführer Walther Schellenberg for Red Skull was entirely coincidental, as the writers for Captain America simply envisioned a cartoonish supervillain type, clearly being unaware that what Red Skull did actually WAS done by various Nazi people in real life).

      But as I said, if Disney's going to redeem him, might as well let him be redeemed.

      Surely is a better idea, than leaving him as a bad guy (a ridiculous villain, from how he is treated in the ending of the movie, and in Frozen Fever). Moreover, a revenge would be really not useful, practically: no character development. And... people never seen the other Disney sequels? In all of them, the villain, or someone affiliated, wants revenge for the previous defeat. So, really, a redemption is the only way. It has a lot of advantage for the character, the plot and Disney itself. I've noticed how Hans has a lot of hints (direct, or overshadowed) in the movie, which refer to a side of him not shown. I think that the directors've always had the idea to show Hans's past in a possible sequel, and, probably, redeem him. Voluntarily, in the movie he never explains his motivations, why he wants to be king, the reasons. He has never said something to make understandable his greed for power and his complete character (specially, for a movie like Frozen). Moreover, with a return, during a redemption arc, the other characters could have a more interesting situation, than the classic There is a villain, so we have only to face it, because Hans can introduce doubts and difficulties, because of what he did.

      Remamber Hans is one of disney's most hated/evil villions. If Disney redeemd him it would cause an uproar of angry fans.

      Funny, that never stopped Disney from redeeming Maleficent in her feature film, and she's probably one of, if not THE most hated/evil villain in the overall franchise.

      And, moreover: how people will be angry, if Hans is redeemed?? Where is the sense of this thing?? I think that there is only a childish hate on villain who didn't do nothing of particular.

        Loading editor
    • Guys, Frozen will suck if Hans becomes good and helps Anna and Elsa. There's no point to it. Go redeem him elsewhere, his redemption doesn't belong in Arendelle.

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57 wrote: Guys, Frozen will suck if Hans becomes good and helps Anna and Elsa. There's no point to it. Go redeem him elsewhere, his redemption doesn't belong in Arendelle.

      Oh, and that douche bag Hans can go eff himself.

      You know, people said the same thing about Maleficent being redeemed, yet that never stopped Disney from making a film that did exactly that (I don't like the film, I should add, but it's still evidence regardless of whether I personally like it or not). If Disney can do THAT to the Mistress of All Evil, they most CERTAINLY can do it to Hans. And don't forget how they redeemed Iago, despite the fact that he was the one who came up with the idea of having Jafar enact a black widower plan of marrying into the throne.

      And for the record, I could care less if he's redeemed or not.

        Loading editor
    • So? Hans is a completely different character. May I add that, considering the past he had, it would work best if his character remained the same as the one we saw in Frozen Fever. People like Hans suffer from their past, and once they start making bad decisions, there's no turning back (depending on their situation). It would be more accurate for Hans to regret his decisions and try to build himself back up from where he last saw him, just not in Frozen 2. We don't need to see Hans as a full comeback character in the second film, regardless of whether he redeems or not. Sure, he can make an appearance on screen, but really bringing him back as a major or secondary character is, quite frankly, unnecessary. The film needs to move in a different direction and progress, instead of being stuck in the past by using the villain as a "boomerang". I'm not against Hans regretting his actions, but fully redeeming him - by directly interacting with Anna and Elsa - onscreen as a major or secondary character doesn't help much for the direction the film needs to go.

      P.S - Ignore my previous joke posts, they have absolutely no significant meaning XD

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57
      HymnLovaGal57 removed this reply because:
      Unnecessary, plus its wording isn't coherent with what I truly believe, plus its wording gives off the wrong meaning
      01:37, January 17, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • HymnLovaGal57 wrote: So? Hans is a completely different character. May I add that, considering the past he had, it would work best if his character remained the same as the one we saw in Frozen Fever. People like Hans suffer from their past, and once they start making bad decisions, there's no turning back (depending on their situation). It would be more accurate for Hans to regret his decisions and try to build himself back up from where he last saw him, just not in Frozen 2. We don't need to see Hans as a full comeback character in the second film, regardless of whether he redeems or not. Sure, he can make an appearance on screen, but really bringing him back as a major or secondary character is, quite frankly, unnecessary. The film needs to move in a different direction and progress, instead of being stuck in the past by using the villain as a "boomerang". I'm not against Hans regretting his actions, but fully redeeming him - by directly interacting with Anna and Elsa - onscreen as a major or secondary character doesn't help much for the direction the film needs to go.

      P.S - Ignore my previous joke posts, they have absolutely no significant meaning XD

      Okay. Just be sure to keep in mind that they'll probably do it, since Hans' voice actor pretty much stated the sequel most likely will have Hans enter a redemption cycle.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      HymnLovaGal57 wrote: So? Hans is a completely different character. May I add that, considering the past he had, it would work best if his character remained the same as the one we saw in Frozen Fever. People like Hans suffer from their past, and once they start making bad decisions, there's no turning back (depending on their situation). It would be more accurate for Hans to regret his decisions and try to build himself back up from where he last saw him, just not in Frozen 2. We don't need to see Hans as a full comeback character in the second film, regardless of whether he redeems or not. Sure, he can make an appearance on screen, but really bringing him back as a major or secondary character is, quite frankly, unnecessary. The film needs to move in a different direction and progress, instead of being stuck in the past by using the villain as a "boomerang". I'm not against Hans regretting his actions, but fully redeeming him - by directly interacting with Anna and Elsa - onscreen as a major or secondary character doesn't help much for the direction the film needs to go.

      P.S - Ignore my previous joke posts, they have absolutely no significant meaning XD

      Okay. Just be sure to keep in mind that they'll probably do it, since Hans' voice actor pretty much stated the sequel most likely will have Hans enter a redemption cycle.

      Or the creators can come to thier senses and not redeem Hans.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      HymnLovaGal57 wrote: So? Hans is a completely different character. May I add that, considering the past he had, it would work best if his character remained the same as the one we saw in Frozen Fever. People like Hans suffer from their past, and once they start making bad decisions, there's no turning back (depending on their situation). It would be more accurate for Hans to regret his decisions and try to build himself back up from where he last saw him, just not in Frozen 2. We don't need to see Hans as a full comeback character in the second film, regardless of whether he redeems or not. Sure, he can make an appearance on screen, but really bringing him back as a major or secondary character is, quite frankly, unnecessary. The film needs to move in a different direction and progress, instead of being stuck in the past by using the villain as a "boomerang". I'm not against Hans regretting his actions, but fully redeeming him - by directly interacting with Anna and Elsa - onscreen as a major or secondary character doesn't help much for the direction the film needs to go.

      P.S - Ignore my previous joke posts, they have absolutely no significant meaning XD

      Okay. Just be sure to keep in mind that they'll probably do it, since Hans' voice actor pretty much stated the sequel most likely will have Hans enter a redemption cycle.

      Or the creators can come to thier senses and not redeem Hans.

      These are the same guys who redeemed Maleficent and made her a good guy in her feature film despite her being even LESS deserving of redemption. I really wouldn't expect them to come to their senses here.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      HymnLovaGal57 wrote: So? Hans is a completely different character. May I add that, considering the past he had, it would work best if his character remained the same as the one we saw in Frozen Fever. People like Hans suffer from their past, and once they start making bad decisions, there's no turning back (depending on their situation). It would be more accurate for Hans to regret his decisions and try to build himself back up from where he last saw him, just not in Frozen 2. We don't need to see Hans as a full comeback character in the second film, regardless of whether he redeems or not. Sure, he can make an appearance on screen, but really bringing him back as a major or secondary character is, quite frankly, unnecessary. The film needs to move in a different direction and progress, instead of being stuck in the past by using the villain as a "boomerang". I'm not against Hans regretting his actions, but fully redeeming him - by directly interacting with Anna and Elsa - onscreen as a major or secondary character doesn't help much for the direction the film needs to go.

      P.S - Ignore my previous joke posts, they have absolutely no significant meaning XD

      Okay. Just be sure to keep in mind that they'll probably do it, since Hans' voice actor pretty much stated the sequel most likely will have Hans enter a redemption cycle.

      Or the creators can come to thier senses and not redeem Hans.

      These are the same guys who redeemed Maleficent and made her a good guy in her feature film despite her being even LESS deserving of redemption. I really wouldn't expect them to come to their senses here.

      Don't consider these persons. They don't want to accept the truth, simply because they are too angry with Hans. Understandable, but so childish.
      
        Loading editor
    • I don't think Hans will be able to redeem himself.

        Loading editor
    • Future Beetle wrote: I don't think Hans will be able to redeem himself.

      From what I've seen in Frozen Fever, I doubt it. He could potentially regret his actions and ask for forgiveness from his family, though they will most likely be too disappointed in him to forgive him.

        Loading editor
    • Hans is a dark character formed from his past. His rough childhood lead him to make bad decisions. I honestly find Hans much more interesting this way. Since the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows, if you consider Hans' past and character, it would be more realistic for him to regret his decisions, be denied forgiveness from his family, and live out the rest of his life in regret. This would make him into a much more tragic character, showing both ideas that he is a dark, manipulative person yet a human whose made the wrong decisions. By doing this, he is left as a complex and tragic character whose fate is to be inferred by the audience. His fate is left in uncertainty while the audience is satisfied by Hans' character development: giving more depth to him while leaving him a mysterious enigma.

      The story would be much cleaner and smoother this way rather than attempting to throw in some complex redemption story that could take up to much screen time (other major ideas must be explored in the second film). :)

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57 wrote:

      Future Beetle wrote: I don't think Hans will be able to redeem himself.

      From what I've seen in Frozen Fever, I doubt it. He could potentially regret his actions and ask for forgiveness from his family, though they will most likely be too disappointed in him to forgive him.

      Maybe, but then again, Darth Vader got redeemed, and he did even WORSE stuff than Hans ever did.

        Loading editor
    • Soceopaths don't feel remorse so Hans will never redeem. Also Hans did seem like he had an ok childhood.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: Soceopaths don't feel remorse so Hans will never redeem. Also Hans did seem like he had an ok childhood.

      I'm not so sure about whether he didn't feel remorse. To be honest, if he truly lacked remorse, he'd probably act like the Joker in the ending of Batman: Under the Red Hood here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsPh_1exnYE (especially when he's laughing his butt off after being unearthed and taken back to Arkham Asylum), either that, or act like Jafar when sealed away into the lamp.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:
      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!
      Just so you're aware, EdwardDavies1, they already made clear Hans will be redeemed in Frozen 2. His own voice actor even stated it. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else wants. What matters is what Disney's going to do.

      Besides, they've redeemed far worse characters before, anyhow. Maleficent got redeemed in her film (yeah, the Mistress of All Evil actually got redeemed, and that's the woman who was effectively a pure monster in her debut film), and besides which, Iago got redeemed in Return of Jafar and is even friends with Jasmine now, and this is despite the fact that Iago was the one who practically gave Jafar the idea to be a black widower to marry into the throne, and even openly suggested, sadistically, that he "push them off a cliff" once he's on the throne.

      Ok, if you say its true, I'll accept it. But We should not forget about what he did to Anna and Elsa. If anything, I'd say that Hans should just be on good terms with Elsa, and not pair them together. If Elsa is to have a love interest, it will have to be a different character.

      Besides wasnt Hans' role in the first film supposed to show everyone about the dangers about entering a relationship with someone you just met? Because I have mixed feelings about Hans redemption. I fear his redemption might betray the message of not marrying someone you just met.

      Maybe Mushu from Mulan can be Elsa's opposite love interest though he's not a human; because I think fire and ice would go together. So Mushu would be crowned as Mushu the Fire King.

        Loading editor
    • "I fear his redemption might betray the message of not marrying someone you just met."

      I think that you are a little confused, EdwardDavies1. The "You can't marry a man you've just met" has nothing to do with a redemption arc. First of all, because the message was used to break the Disney tradition of marrying the princess with the prince after practically a very little time from their first meet. Second, because the redemption is the act performed by someone to repair the wrong actions done in the past. This doesn't exclude the evil things that Hans did in the first movie. Hans wanted to arrive to the throne marrying Anna, as we all know. If he will brought back for a redemption, this will not betray the message. Moreover, because the two arguments aren't connected.

        Loading editor
    • Luke 2.0 wrote: "I fear his redemption might betray the message of not marrying someone you just met."

      I think that you are a little confused, EdwardDavies1. The "You can't marry a man you've just met" has nothing to do with a redemption arc. First of all, because the message was used to break the Disney tradition of marrying the princess with the prince after practically a very little time from their first meet. Second, because the redemption is the act performed by someone to repair the wrong actions done in the past. This doesn't exclude the evil things that Hans did in the first movie. Hans wanted to arrive to the throne marrying Anna, as we all know. If he will brought back for a redemption, this will not betray the message. Moreover, because the two arguments aren't connected.

      Yeah, agreed. And quite honestly, the whole "you can't marry a man you just met" thing didn't even make sense as a comparison between the various Disney Princesses before them. Merida never married at all or even gained a love interest. Pocahontas's love for John Smith was implied to have spanned for weeks if not months. Jasmine and Aladdin didn't exactly get married at first sight either (if anything, they had to wait a movie, a TV series, and two sequels before they got hitched). Belle and Beast certainly didn't get married in a few seconds after meeting each other. Mulan and Shang didn't marry until the sequel, and they didn't even have a blossoming relationship until WAY late into the first movie. Tiana and Naveen didn't exactly have love at first sight either, nor did they actually get married in a few seconds. Ariel and Eric, while they DID fall for each other at first sight, they definitely took their time getting married, and certainly didn't do it in a few seconds (she had to wait at least five days to get married to him, and even after Ursula was destroyed and she permanently became human, we can reasonably assume that Ariel and Eric waited weeks or even Months before they got married). Rapunzel and Flynn obviously didn't get married within a few seconds of meeting each other. Cinderella realistically would have had to plan for weeks/months for the wedding. Even Snow White's meeting of the prince despite her pining for him was about a few days, weeks, even months at best between their meeting and his reviving her (based on the changing seasons in the ending). Probably the only Disney Princess who actually DID marry someone she just met was Aurora and Prince Phillip, and even THAT was justified somewhat because they were already in an arranged marriage anyhow. The whole theme of "don't marry someone you just met" made about as much sense as Obi Wan Kenobi's line of "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" did in Revenge of the Sith (none at all, in other words). It really didn't break any traditions at all. Yes, there was a lot of love at first sight in prior Disney films, but they certainly didn't MARRY at first sight, not even in the Golden Age prior to Walt Disney's death (Aurora's the only exception, or the closest thing to one anyway, since, barring the prologue, the entirety of the film's plot took place in just less than a single day, and again, even she had some justification in that Aurora and Phillip's marriage had been planned out since she was a baby at the very least).

      And agreed, that won't damage the message anyways. If anything, it would strengthen it. Besides, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the post-modernist messaging Disney's pushing right now regarding plot twists regarding who's a villain and who's not (like with Big Hero 6, or Frozen, or Meet the Robinsons with that hat, or the Maleficent film, or any of that). If I wanted to see a story with so many twists and turns that even seeing it again won't clear up the confusion, I'd just plop down and play Metal Gear Solid 2. Why can't we go back to solid good guys and bad guys? Ones where we can see them from a mile ahead? It's not like it's unrealistic. You could see Marquis de Sade as being evil from a mile away, and he doesn't even hide that he's a monster either. If anything, people like Sade who openly brag about how horrible people they are is a LOT more realistic.

        Loading editor
    • I think that what Disney it's trying to do show more realistic characters, with their grey part (mainly in Frozen and Big Hero 6). But I totally agree with you about everything.

        Loading editor
    • I think haveing plot twists can make a movie even more fun.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: I think haveing plot twists can make a movie even more fun.

      If they are to do plot twists, they definitely shouldn't do it like Metal Gear Solid 2 or Metal Gear Solid V did it. That would just result in people not knowing what to expect for the movie and think it stinks as a result. There is such a thing as overdoing twists in a single film.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote: I think haveing plot twists can make a movie even more fun.

      If they are to do plot twists, they definitely shouldn't do it like Metal Gear Solid 2 or Metal Gear Solid V did it. That would just result in people not knowing what to expect for the movie and think it stinks as a result. There is such a thing as overdoing twists in a single film.

      Ok I did't see thous Metal Gear Solid movies so I can't speak for them but the plot twists in Frozen helped keep the movie interasting. When charecters do the unexpected it helps keep the audeances attention.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote: I think haveing plot twists can make a movie even more fun.

      If they are to do plot twists, they definitely shouldn't do it like Metal Gear Solid 2 or Metal Gear Solid V did it. That would just result in people not knowing what to expect for the movie and think it stinks as a result. There is such a thing as overdoing twists in a single film.

      Ok I did't see thous Metal Gear Solid movies so I can't speak for them but the plot twists in Frozen helped keep the movie interasting. When charecters do the unexpected it helps keep the audeances attention.

      They're not movies, they're video games. And for the record, the twists to Metal Gear Solid 2 and Metal Gear Solid V were VERY controversial, not exactly very well received (Raiden of MGS2 was even considered as unpopular as Jar Jar Binks once upon a time).

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      Soceopaths don't feel remorse so Hans will never redeem. Also Hans did seem like he had an ok childhood.

      It's been officially established that his childhood was shit. Jennifer Lee has said that she views Hans as "a tragic character, and a product of growing up without love" . Tragic. (It's from the Reddit AMA)

      People really need to let go of the "maybe he lied about his brothers being abusive" idea. His childhood actually was horrible, it's been confirmed. And no, it doesn't justify his actions, but I'm really tired of people trying to make everything about him ultra bad and refusing to accept anything that could be interpreted as sympathetic, even going as far as to try to claim that things said clearly in the movie "aren't true".

      And we've gone over many times that Hans' behaviour doesnt fit a full sociopath and therefore there's no real grounds to declare him a full sociopath. We don't know enough. Besides, if he redeems, it'll show that he's not a sociopath, so really it's down to what WDAS wants, if they want to redeem him they will.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Soceopaths don't feel remorse so Hans will never redeem. Also Hans did seem like he had an ok childhood.

      It's been officially established that his childhood was shit. Jennifer Lee has said that she views Hans as "a tragic character, and a product of growing up without love" . Tragic. (It's from the Reddit AMA)

      People really need to let go of the "maybe he lied about his brothers being abusive" idea. His childhood actually was horrible, it's been confirmed. And no, it doesn't justify his actions, but I'm really tired of people trying to make everything about him ultra bad and refusing to accept anything that could be interpreted as sympathetic, even going as far as to try to claim that things said clearly in the movie "aren't true".

      And we've gone over many times that Hans' behaviour doesnt fit a full sociopath and therefore there's no real grounds to declare him a full sociopath. We don't know enough. Besides, if he redeems, it'll show that he's not a sociopath, so really it's down to what WDAS wants, if they want to redeem him they will.

      Yeah, agreed. There's definitely no way he'd qualify as a sociopath, not a full one anyway. For the record, there's definitely no way Gaston from Beauty and the Beast would qualify either, as sociopaths are generally gifted with the silver tongue (ie, are consummate liars), and Gaston definitely was not that skilled of a liar (if he was, the entire Gaston reprise would NOT have happened). Had to bring him up because Gaston on the Villains Wiki is listed as a sociopath/psychopath despite not actually meeting any of the requirements. He'd only qualify as a narcissist at best.

        Loading editor
    • In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Soceopaths don't feel remorse so Hans will never redeem. Also Hans did seem like he had an ok childhood.

      It's been officially established that his childhood was shit. Jennifer Lee has said that she views Hans as "a tragic character, and a product of growing up without love" . Tragic. (It's from the Reddit AMA)

      People really need to let go of the "maybe he lied about his brothers being abusive" idea. His childhood actually was horrible, it's been confirmed. And no, it doesn't justify his actions, but I'm really tired of people trying to make everything about him ultra bad and refusing to accept anything that could be interpreted as sympathetic, even going as far as to try to claim that things said clearly in the movie "aren't true".

      And we've gone over many times that Hans' behaviour doesnt fit a full sociopath and therefore there's no real grounds to declare him a full sociopath. We don't know enough. Besides, if he redeems, it'll show that he's not a sociopath, so really it's down to what WDAS wants, if they want to redeem him they will.

      Hans has sociopathic tendencies, that is different from a sociopathic personality. We need to remember, moreover, that he came to Arendelle with the intention to be king, escaping from his horrible family, be a ruler and have a happy life. For him was the chance of all life, it's understandable if he was determined at all costs. Moreover, Jennifer Lee confirmed that Hans was sincere with Anna about his past, and we have seen this also in "Love is an Open Door" with the phrase " I've been searching all my life to find my own place". This isn't the behavior of "classic villains". And, at the end, he never showed to use his past as justification for his actions. At the contrary, he never explained the reasons of his lust for power. He didn't want to talk about his entire life, this isn't the behavior of a sociopath. Absolutely.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.

      First thing: everyone can write what they want about Hans. This isn't a site made by Disney itself, but from normal people. Do you realize this thing?

      Second thing: from what we actually know about him, now, it's clear that this isn't "sibling rivarly". It's official that Hans was neglected from his brother, pretending to be invinsible isn't "sibling rivarly". Look here: http://33.media.tumblr.com/268599adc0282c2b03a78686787ace8d/tumblr_inline_n3y4wr4yxe1szvviu.jpg

        Loading editor
    • Luke 2.0 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote: In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.

      First thing: everyone can write what they want about Hans. This isn't a site made by Disney itself, but from normal people. Do you realize this thing?

      Second thing: from what we actually know about him, now, it's clear that this isn't "sibling rivarly". It's official that Hans was neglected from his brother, pretending to be invinsible isn't "sibling rivarly". Look here: http://33.media.tumblr.com/268599adc0282c2b03a78686787ace8d/tumblr_inline_n3y4wr4yxe1szvviu.jpg

      I know that anyone can edit thous pages but that also includes you. So if you people belive so strongly that Hans is't a Soceopath and that he was a victam of sibiling neglact then why have't you pro Hans fans edited the pages to say otherwise?

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote: In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.

      First thing: everyone can write what they want about Hans. This isn't a site made by Disney itself, but from normal people. Do you realize this thing?

      Second thing: from what we actually know about him, now, it's clear that this isn't "sibling rivarly". It's official that Hans was neglected from his brother, pretending to be invinsible isn't "sibling rivarly". Look here: http://33.media.tumblr.com/268599adc0282c2b03a78686787ace8d/tumblr_inline_n3y4wr4yxe1szvviu.jpg

      I know that anyone can edit thous pages but that also includes you. So if you people belive so strongly that Hans is't a Soceopath and that he was a victam of sibiling neglact then why have't you pro Hans fans edited the pages to say otherwise?

      Simply because someone will change the edits, putting again the former version of the page, only because it's too stupid to leave others writing what they want.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Soceopaths don't feel remorse so Hans will never redeem. Also Hans did seem like he had an ok childhood.

      It's been officially established that his childhood was shit. Jennifer Lee has said that she views Hans as "a tragic character, and a product of growing up without love" . Tragic. (It's from the Reddit AMA)

      People really need to let go of the "maybe he lied about his brothers being abusive" idea. His childhood actually was horrible, it's been confirmed. And no, it doesn't justify his actions, but I'm really tired of people trying to make everything about him ultra bad and refusing to accept anything that could be interpreted as sympathetic, even going as far as to try to claim that things said clearly in the movie "aren't true".

      And we've gone over many times that Hans' behaviour doesnt fit a full sociopath and therefore there's no real grounds to declare him a full sociopath. We don't know enough. Besides, if he redeems, it'll show that he's not a sociopath, so really it's down to what WDAS wants, if they want to redeem him they will.

      Exactly. Hans is a tragic character. I think that in order for his character to work, he should remain just that: a tragic character. His character would be more interesting if he regretted his decision and was left with an unclear fate. That way there could also be more book possibilities in the future.

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57 wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      Soceopaths don't feel remorse so Hans will never redeem. Also Hans did seem like he had an ok childhood.
      It's been officially established that his childhood was shit. Jennifer Lee has said that she views Hans as "a tragic character, and a product of growing up without love" . Tragic. (It's from the Reddit AMA)

      People really need to let go of the "maybe he lied about his brothers being abusive" idea. His childhood actually was horrible, it's been confirmed. And no, it doesn't justify his actions, but I'm really tired of people trying to make everything about him ultra bad and refusing to accept anything that could be interpreted as sympathetic, even going as far as to try to claim that things said clearly in the movie "aren't true".

      And we've gone over many times that Hans' behaviour doesnt fit a full sociopath and therefore there's no real grounds to declare him a full sociopath. We don't know enough. Besides, if he redeems, it'll show that he's not a sociopath, so really it's down to what WDAS wants, if they want to redeem him they will.

      Exactly. Hans is a tragic character. I think that in order for his character to work, he should remain just that: a tragic character. His character would be more interesting if he regretted his decision and was left with an unclear fate. That way there could also be more book possibilities in the future.

      Hans won't regrat his decisions, Soceopaths are incapable of feeling remorse.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.

      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.

      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.

        Loading editor
    • Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.

      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.

      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.

      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.

      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.

      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.

      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.

      Thanks to God, someone has said it.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.

      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.

      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.

      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.

      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.

      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.

      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.

      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.

      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.

      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.

      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.

      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.

      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.

      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.

      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.

        Loading editor
    • Just drop all this, this conversation is just going around in circles -_-

        Loading editor
    • This is Hans, the most dangerous, darker and horrible villain that Disney have ever created: https://youtu.be/Dy100ozmwio

      Yeah, for sure XD

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.

      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:


      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.

      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.

      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:



      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.
      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.
      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

      Well tecnicly the Maleficent movie was a remake not a sequal so the Maleficent from sleeping beauty was not really the same maleficent it was a diffrent less evil veirson of Maleficent. Also if Jennifer Lee was a soceopath than why has't she ruined anyone's life?

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:



      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.
      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.
      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

      Well tecnicly the Maleficent movie was a remake not a sequal so the Maleficent from sleeping beauty was not really the same maleficent it was a diffrent less evil veirson of Maleficent. Also if Jennifer Lee was a soceopath than why has't she ruined anyone's life?

      The Maleficent film wasn't a remake either. The live action 2015 Cinderella film was a remake, Maleficent was NOT a remake. And quite frankly, her message in the film alongside Linda Woolverton's messages actually ARE pretty damaging to people, not just to guys, but even to girls, so who says she hasn't ruined any people's lives?

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:



      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.
      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.
      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

      Well tecnicly the Maleficent movie was a remake not a sequal so the Maleficent from sleeping beauty was not really the same maleficent it was a diffrent less evil veirson of Maleficent. Also if Jennifer Lee was a soceopath than why has't she ruined anyone's life?
      The Maleficent film wasn't a remake either. The live action 2015 Cinderella film was a remake, Maleficent was NOT a remake. And quite frankly, her message in the film alongside Linda Woolverton's messages actually ARE pretty damaging to people, not just to guys, but even to girls, so who says she hasn't ruined any people's lives?

      The only person who sees Linda Woolverton as a damaging influence is you.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:



      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.
      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.
      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

      Well tecnicly the Maleficent movie was a remake not a sequal so the Maleficent from sleeping beauty was not really the same maleficent it was a diffrent less evil veirson of Maleficent. Also if Jennifer Lee was a soceopath than why has't she ruined anyone's life?
      The Maleficent film wasn't a remake either. The live action 2015 Cinderella film was a remake, Maleficent was NOT a remake. And quite frankly, her message in the film alongside Linda Woolverton's messages actually ARE pretty damaging to people, not just to guys, but even to girls, so who says she hasn't ruined any people's lives?

      The only person who sees Linda Woolverton as a damaging influence is you.

      No, actually, I'm not the only one. At the very least, there are others who also saw her as a hack writer, and at worst, do see her as a damaging influence. Case in point (and bear in mind, my own posts as otness_e don't even count):

      Not to mention Joseph8 on this site also agrees she's a damaging influence.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:




      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.
      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.
      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

      Well tecnicly the Maleficent movie was a remake not a sequal so the Maleficent from sleeping beauty was not really the same maleficent it was a diffrent less evil veirson of Maleficent. Also if Jennifer Lee was a soceopath than why has't she ruined anyone's life?
      The Maleficent film wasn't a remake either. The live action 2015 Cinderella film was a remake, Maleficent was NOT a remake. And quite frankly, her message in the film alongside Linda Woolverton's messages actually ARE pretty damaging to people, not just to guys, but even to girls, so who says she hasn't ruined any people's lives?
      The only person who sees Linda Woolverton as a damaging influence is you.
      No, actually, I'm not the only one. At the very least, there are others who also saw her as a hack writer, and at worst, do see her as a damaging influence. Case in point (and bear in mind, my own posts as otness_e don't even count):

      Not to mention Joseph8 on this site also agrees she's a damaging influence.

      Not me.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:




      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.
      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.
      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

      Well tecnicly the Maleficent movie was a remake not a sequal so the Maleficent from sleeping beauty was not really the same maleficent it was a diffrent less evil veirson of Maleficent. Also if Jennifer Lee was a soceopath than why has't she ruined anyone's life?
      The Maleficent film wasn't a remake either. The live action 2015 Cinderella film was a remake, Maleficent was NOT a remake. And quite frankly, her message in the film alongside Linda Woolverton's messages actually ARE pretty damaging to people, not just to guys, but even to girls, so who says she hasn't ruined any people's lives?
      The only person who sees Linda Woolverton as a damaging influence is you.
      No, actually, I'm not the only one. At the very least, there are others who also saw her as a hack writer, and at worst, do see her as a damaging influence. Case in point (and bear in mind, my own posts as otness_e don't even count):

      Not to mention Joseph8 on this site also agrees she's a damaging influence.

      Not me.

      I never said EVERYONE thought she was a bad influence, I just said more than just me.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:


      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:



      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:




      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Vilivi wrote:




      Wolf 91 wrote:
      In the personality section on the Hans page it says Soceopathic and in the 12 older brothers section on the Hans/Relationships page it says that it's unclear if his sibilings neglacted him of if they were mearly engageing in sibiling rivalry.
      That's because the wiki is fan-maintained. All it takes is one idiot who wants stubbornly to believe, despite evidence, that Hans is a socipath and he lied about his brothers, to go and keep changing it. For example, "it's unclear if his siblings neglected him" is a blatant lie.
      If you try to prove anything because "it reads on the wiki" you're an idiot. What fans write on the wiki has nothing to do with what's canon.
      Yeah, agreed. And it also doesn't help that sometimes even if something is actually SHOWN and STATED in the work or by people in charge of the work, it gets deleted by said fans anyways. Like my trying to point out that Belle was a misandrist for example. There were already two official materials that explicitly depicted Belle as such (The New Adventures of Beauty and the Beast and that WDW pin), yet SilverFlight refuses to include them for whatever reason.
      Ah, just one of your silly tricks to get me to hate Belle, thats all.
      I wasn't even thinking about you at all when I mentioned this in that post, actually. I guess a better example would be how they thought leaving out how, contrary to popular belief, Ariel did not simply want to go to the surface because of Eric was a good idea even when many of her detractors claimed she did in fact do that.
      Another thing Jennifer Lee said that Hans is a soceopath which is another reason he can't redeem.
      She also had described herself as a sociopath, so unless you also want to call her one of the worst monsters in history because of that, I would take what she says regarding sociopathy with a grain of salt.
      When she called herself a Soceopath she was jokeing but judging buy what she said AND how Hans acted in the movie it's pretty clear that he is indeed a Soceopath.
      What makes you so sure she was joking? Last I checked, that was a tweet and a text based source. You can't convey humor in text alone. It requires intonations.

      And besides, let me remind you that Disney actually redeemed Maleficent in the Maleficent film, and she was even worse than Hans in every way. Actually, screw that, they made her seem like she was never really evil to begin with. If they could do that with Maleficent, they most certainly can redeem Hans (and bear in mind, I hated what they did with her in that film).

      Well tecnicly the Maleficent movie was a remake not a sequal so the Maleficent from sleeping beauty was not really the same maleficent it was a diffrent less evil veirson of Maleficent. Also if Jennifer Lee was a soceopath than why has't she ruined anyone's life?
      The Maleficent film wasn't a remake either. The live action 2015 Cinderella film was a remake, Maleficent was NOT a remake. And quite frankly, her message in the film alongside Linda Woolverton's messages actually ARE pretty damaging to people, not just to guys, but even to girls, so who says she hasn't ruined any people's lives?
      The only person who sees Linda Woolverton as a damaging influence is you.
      No, actually, I'm not the only one. At the very least, there are others who also saw her as a hack writer, and at worst, do see her as a damaging influence. Case in point (and bear in mind, my own posts as otness_e don't even count):

      Not to mention Joseph8 on this site also agrees she's a damaging influence.

      Not me.
      I never said EVERYONE thought she was a bad influence, I just said more than just me.

      What im saying is that nothing you show will ever change my view of Belle.

        Loading editor
    • Hans has been punished. He will not return in the sequel. End of discussion B-)

        Loading editor
    • Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      I don't really see a redemption for Hans. He was greedy enough to go as far as to attempt to kill Elsa! And , Spoiler Alert, in the short, Frozen Fever, Hans is seen to have been punished to make a pile of cow feces.

        Loading editor
    • TheFinnishGamer wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      I don't really see a redemption for Hans. He was greedy enough to go as far as to attempt to kill Elsa! And , Spoiler Alert, in the short, Frozen Fever, Hans is seen to have been punished to make a pile of cow feces.

      Maybe, but then again, his voice actor did hint at a redemption arc. And besides, if they can redeem Iago despite his coming up with the black widow plan, they most certainly can redeem Hans. Heck, if Disney was able to redeem Maleficent in her feature film, they most certainly can redeem Hans especially considering that Maleficent's list of crimes was FAR worse in scale and vileness than Hans ever could amount to.

        Loading editor
    • Voice Actors can come up with a bunch of malarchy. So don't trust every single little thing people say. And you said it was hinted at. Hinting at something doesn't always mean it's gonna happen. Some things may be scrapped later in production.

        Loading editor
    • TheFinnishGamer wrote: Voice Actors can come up with a bunch of malarchy. So don't trust every single little thing people say. And you said it was hinted at. Hinting at something doesn't always mean it's gonna happen. Some things may be scrapped later in production.

      That may be true, but we shouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility until Frozen 2 is released.

      And besides, need I remind you that these are the same guys who for whatever reason decided to redeem the Mistress of All Evil herself in her feature film despite her being unworthy of redemption in any way, shape, or form, a true complete monster.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      TheFinnishGamer wrote: Voice Actors can come up with a bunch of malarchy. So don't trust every single little thing people say. And you said it was hinted at. Hinting at something doesn't always mean it's gonna happen. Some things may be scrapped later in production.

      That may be true, but we shouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility until Frozen 2 is released.

      And besides, need I remind you that these are the same guys who for whatever reason decided to redeem the Mistress of All Evil herself in her feature film despite her being unworthy of redemption in any way, shape, or form, a true complete monster.

      The Maleficent movie was tecnicly a remake not a sequal.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      TheFinnishGamer wrote: Voice Actors can come up with a bunch of malarchy. So don't trust every single little thing people say. And you said it was hinted at. Hinting at something doesn't always mean it's gonna happen. Some things may be scrapped later in production.

      That may be true, but we shouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility until Frozen 2 is released.

      And besides, need I remind you that these are the same guys who for whatever reason decided to redeem the Mistress of All Evil herself in her feature film despite her being unworthy of redemption in any way, shape, or form, a true complete monster.

      The Maleficent movie was tecnicly a remake not a sequal.

      It's NOT a remake. A remake is more like the Cinderella film released in 2015, where they actually try to stay true to the story, just somewhat updated.

        Loading editor
    • Umm, I thought the Maleficient movie was a remake, but idk. Still think it's a remake though

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57 wrote: Umm, I thought the Maleficient movie was a remake, but idk. Still think it's a remake though

      It's not a remake, though, as it basically has far too many different things from the original film to even be that. A remake generally tries to follow the general plotline of the film it is remaking. Like for example, Cinderella 2015. Or how about Resident Evil's 2002 remake or Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:
      ...it basically has far too many different things from the original film to even be that...

      A remake doesn't have to follow content from the original film in order to be a remake. A remake is defined as "anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt". A remake can be close to the original film, or it can be totally different. A film with completely different elements is classified, as the term suggests, a *remake*.

        Loading editor
    • HymnLovaGal57 wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:
      ...it basically has far too many different things from the original film to even be that...

      A remake doesn't have to follow content from the original film in order to be a remake. A remake is defined as "anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt". A remake can be close to the original film, or it can be totally different. A film with completely different elements is classified, as the term suggests, a *remake*.

      That's too broad of a definition. Under that definition, literally any of the films Disney has made over the years are remakes because they were adapted from various fairytales and books.

        Loading editor
    • Oh yeah, my bad, I forgot to take the original Snow White movie into consideration. Maleficent is more of a spin-off than a remake, then.

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.

      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!

      I think everything would be perfect if they knew who could have been the culprit behind Elsa's powers because what if Elsa had been born with her powers by the culprit with his curse? What if he could have been making Elsa's life a living fearing hell from far away and in his lair?

      I'm just saying that I'm suspecting that she didn't got her powers from something terrible inside her mother's pregnant belly when she was expecting Elsa, I think she got them from someone with a curse. Someone who wanted make Elsa look bad and that he would eventually kill her and destroy Arendelle. I'm suspecting that it might be the Evil Troll from the original Hans Christian Anderson classic the Snow Queen. (Defininatley NOT Grand Pabbie or any of the good trolls) but a different kind or maybe recreated as an ogre

        Loading editor
    • 702085 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!

      I think everything would be perfect if they knew who could have been the culprit behind Elsa's powers because what if Elsa had been born with her powers by the culprit with his curse? What if he could have been making Elsa's life a living fearing hell from far away and in his lair?

      I'm just saying that I'm suspecting that she didn't got her powers from something terrible inside her mother's pregnant belly when she was expecting Elsa, I think she got them from someone with a curse. Someone who wanted make Elsa look bad and that he would eventually kill her and destroy Arendelle. I'm suspecting that it might be the Evil Troll from the original Hans Christian Anderson classic the Snow Queen. (Defininatley NOT Grand Pabbie or any of the good trolls) but a different kind or maybe recreated as an ogre

      Did't the King of Arendelle say to Pabbie that Elsa was born with her powers and not cursed?

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      702085 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!

      I think everything would be perfect if they knew who could have been the culprit behind Elsa's powers because what if Elsa had been born with her powers by the culprit with his curse? What if he could have been making Elsa's life a living fearing hell from far away and in his lair?

      I'm just saying that I'm suspecting that she didn't got her powers from something terrible inside her mother's pregnant belly when she was expecting Elsa, I think she got them from someone with a curse. Someone who wanted make Elsa look bad and that he would eventually kill her and destroy Arendelle. I'm suspecting that it might be the Evil Troll from the original Hans Christian Anderson classic the Snow Queen. (Defininatley NOT Grand Pabbie or any of the good trolls) but a different kind or maybe recreated as an ogre

      Did't the King of Arendelle say to Pabbie that Elsa was born with her powers and not cursed?

      Doesn't mean said troll/ogre didn't curse Elsa while she was still developing in the Queen of Arendelle's womb. Remember, technically, Rapunzel was born with her power to heal via her hair, yet that was only because she was supplied with that magic flower's abilities while her mom had ingested it at the king's behest while she was still pregnant with her.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote:

      702085 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!

      I think everything would be perfect if they knew who could have been the culprit behind Elsa's powers because what if Elsa had been born with her powers by the culprit with his curse? What if he could have been making Elsa's life a living fearing hell from far away and in his lair?

      I'm just saying that I'm suspecting that she didn't got her powers from something terrible inside her mother's pregnant belly when she was expecting Elsa, I think she got them from someone with a curse. Someone who wanted make Elsa look bad and that he would eventually kill her and destroy Arendelle. I'm suspecting that it might be the Evil Troll from the original Hans Christian Anderson classic the Snow Queen. (Defininatley NOT Grand Pabbie or any of the good trolls) but a different kind or maybe recreated as an ogre

      Did't the King of Arendelle say to Pabbie that Elsa was born with her powers and not cursed?

      Yes he did. But there is got to be a lot more to it than that. Like before Elsa was born, someone (probably the Evil Troll) had pierced a strong icy spell on the Queen's pregnant belly out on purpose trying to kill Elsa inside, but he only managed to give her his powers instead but that was still fine with him. It's like Elsa was indeed born with her powers but by a curse

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      Wolf 91 wrote:

      702085 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Joseph8 wrote:
      I think Hans should be redeemed in Frozen 2. He is my favorite Disney character of all time. He is a conservative and supporter of the sovereign citizen. He cares about the citizens a lot. He tried to save them from Elsa, but he failed. Hans should get his much deserved victory in Frozen 2. Hans had a horrible childhood as was revealed in the book A Frozen Heart. His brothers and his fathers abused him. Hans desired greatness in life. He wanted power. Hans is like my favorite historical leader of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon was a great leader who supported the sovereign citizen. The British and Russians were bent on destroying Napoleon. Elsa and Anna were bent on destroying Hans when his plan was revealed. Hans was so close to winning. He almost became the Savior of Arendelle. Anna put a stop to his grand plan. Hans should redeem and finally become what he so much desires.
      Get it through your head then. Hans is not portrayed as a sympathetic character unlike Elsa. Look at how much she had been going through all her life. She spent 13 years (13!), trying to conceal her powers for the safety of her sister and has been staying in her room, living in fear all this time! She's the one who needs more sympathy, along with her sister!

      I think everything would be perfect if they knew who could have been the culprit behind Elsa's powers because what if Elsa had been born with her powers by the culprit with his curse? What if he could have been making Elsa's life a living fearing hell from far away and in his lair?

      I'm just saying that I'm suspecting that she didn't got her powers from something terrible inside her mother's pregnant belly when she was expecting Elsa, I think she got them from someone with a curse. Someone who wanted make Elsa look bad and that he would eventually kill her and destroy Arendelle. I'm suspecting that it might be the Evil Troll from the original Hans Christian Anderson classic the Snow Queen. (Defininatley NOT Grand Pabbie or any of the good trolls) but a different kind or maybe recreated as an ogre

      Did't the King of Arendelle say to Pabbie that Elsa was born with her powers and not cursed?

      Doesn't mean said troll/ogre didn't curse Elsa while she was still developing in the Queen of Arendelle's womb. Remember, technically, Rapunzel was born with her power to heal via her hair, yet that was only because she was supplied with that magic flower's abilities while her mom had ingested it at the king's behest while she was still pregnant with her.

      That was because she was born with that power by a spell and that spell is the golden flower. Because when the Queen drank the flower's medicine, Rapunzel's healing powers were created

        Loading editor
    • A little something about the "Hans Redemption" topic.

      Some of you guys seems to have veered quite a bit from the intended topic. Would a fanfic idea, a crossover one that redeems Hans that isn't lore-breaking be acceptable to be discussed here?

        Loading editor
    • For whose who thought Hans was a sociopath look at Miss Nettle from Sofia the first. She was evil enough to suffocate children in bubbles. AND she got redeemed in The Tale of Miss Nettle

        Loading editor
    • Anyways going back to the Hans topic, I just recently got the book a frozen heart for my birthday, and I just read it. For a while, I intitially thought the same thing as the others said about Hans being a full blown sociopath. But this book...




      ...PROVED ME WRONG. He's a complicated character. And before he did his wicked acts, he had a moment of doubt before doing it. For example, when he sentenced Elsa to death, he became plagued by doubt. He never did want to become a murderer or kill Elsa, but he had to make exceptions when the winter was getting worse. In short, he's a complicated character with sociopathic tendencies, and only did evil when it's necessary or when he had no choice

        Loading editor
    • Then I think it's time for Disney to put a real classic villain in Frozen (maybe in the sequel) I still suggest that it should be the Evil Troll/Ogre

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote: Anyways going back to the Hans topic, I just recently got the book a frozen heart for my birthday, and I just read it. For a while, I intitially thought the same thing as the others said about Hans being a full blown sociopath. But this book...




      ...PROVED ME WRONG. He's a complicated character. And before he did his wicked acts, he had a moment of doubt before doing it. For example, when he sentenced Elsa to death, he became plagued by doubt. He never did want to become a murderer or kill Elsa, but he had to make exceptions when the winter was getting worse. In short, he's a complicated character with sociopathic tendencies, and only did evil when it's necessary or when he had no choice

      Wow, plot twist XD. So, your point of view on Hans is changed?

        Loading editor
    • Luke 2.0 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Anyways going back to the Hans topic, I just recently got the book a frozen heart for my birthday, and I just read it. For a while, I intitially thought the same thing as the others said about Hans being a full blown sociopath. But this book...




      ...PROVED ME WRONG. He's a complicated character. And before he did his wicked acts, he had a moment of doubt before doing it. For example, when he sentenced Elsa to death, he became plagued by doubt. He never did want to become a murderer or kill Elsa, but he had to make exceptions when the winter was getting worse. In short, he's a complicated character with sociopathic tendencies, and only did evil when it's necessary or when he had no choice

      Wow, plot twist XD. So, your point of view on Hans is changed?

      Well, yeah. The book proved me wrong. However the one thing i don't get is at the end when he was apprehended, he was struggling because he didnt want to go home. Wasn't he supposed to feel remorse?

        Loading editor
    • EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Anyways going back to the Hans topic, I just recently got the book a frozen heart for my birthday, and I just read it. For a while, I intitially thought the same thing as the others said about Hans being a full blown sociopath. But this book...




      ...PROVED ME WRONG. He's a complicated character. And before he did his wicked acts, he had a moment of doubt before doing it. For example, when he sentenced Elsa to death, he became plagued by doubt. He never did want to become a murderer or kill Elsa, but he had to make exceptions when the winter was getting worse. In short, he's a complicated character with sociopathic tendencies, and only did evil when it's necessary or when he had no choice

      Wow, plot twist XD. So, your point of view on Hans is changed?

      Well, yeah. The book proved me wrong. However the one thing i don't get is at the end when he was apprehended, he was struggling because he didnt want to go home. Wasn't he supposed to feel remorse?

      He was still thinking of being on the side of reason. It is a normal thing for everyone. Sometimes we believe to have reason on things, and we need time to understand that we had wrong. It's understandable if Hans doesn't feel remorse, for now, because he lost the only chance he had to find his own place. Hans is an egocentric person, so, this lack of remorse isn't unexpected. He needs time, and he needs to learn. Hans isn't like his brothers, he did for the first bad things because they were necessary for him to arrive on his goal. The decision to make people suffering it is a classic consequence of the tragic pasts.

      To be honest, the book isn't completely canonical, but it works on Hans side, except for the final part, where his personality is continually contradicted. Moreover, what was shown in the movie is in contradiction with this book, or, to be specific, the book is in contradiction with the movie on Hans. For example, on the fjord, when Elsa falls, Hans, on the background, shows a face of sorrow, like if he was feeling sorry for Elsa. In the book, this element is, strangely, interpreted as a moment of doubt for Hans about if Elsa was felling remorse for what she did.

      I'm not saying that the book isn't valid, at the contrary, Disney tried to show Hans as a sympathetic character and villain, totally different from the past. But, I believe that the directors've made something a little different for him. And, for this, I believe that we will understand more Hans in the sequel, more than with this book.

        Loading editor
    • Luke 2.0 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote:

      Luke 2.0 wrote:

      EdwardDavies1 wrote: Anyways going back to the Hans topic, I just recently got the book a frozen heart for my birthday, and I just read it. For a while, I intitially thought the same thing as the others said about Hans being a full blown sociopath. But this book...




      ...PROVED ME WRONG. He's a complicated character. And before he did his wicked acts, he had a moment of doubt before doing it. For example, when he sentenced Elsa to death, he became plagued by doubt. He never did want to become a murderer or kill Elsa, but he had to make exceptions when the winter was getting worse. In short, he's a complicated character with sociopathic tendencies, and only did evil when it's necessary or when he had no choice

      Wow, plot twist XD.

      So, your point of view on Hans is changed?

      Well, yeah. The book proved me wrong. However the one thing i don't get is at the end when he was apprehended, he was struggling because he didnt want to go home. Wasn't he supposed to feel remorse?

      He was still thinking of being on the side of reason. It is a normal thing for everyone. Sometimes we believe to have reason on things, and we need time to understand that we had wrong. It's understandable if Hans doesn't feel remorse, for now, because he lost the only chance he had to find his own place. Hans is an egocentric person, so, this lack of remorse isn't unexpected. He needs time, and he needs to learn. Hans isn't like his brothers, he did for the first bad things because they were necessary for him to arrive on his goal. The decision to make people suffering it is a classic consequence of the tragic pasts.

      To be honest, the book isn't completely canonical, but it works on Hans side, except for the final part, where his personality is continually contradicted. Moreover, what was shown in the movie is in contradiction with this book, or, to be specific, the book is in contradiction with the movie on Hans. For example, on the fjord, when Elsa falls, Hans, on the background, shows a face of sorrow, like if he was feeling sorry for Elsa. In the book, this element is, strangely, interpreted as a moment of doubt for Hans about if Elsa was felling remorse for what she did.

      I'm not saying that the book isn't valid, at the contrary, Disney tried to show Hans as a sympathetic character and villain, totally different from the past. But, I believe that the directors've made something a little different for him. And, for this, I believe that we will understand more Hans in the sequel, more than with this book.

      Oh ok. I get it now. So this book basically left us at some sort of a cliffhanger.

        Loading editor