Frozen 4 confirmed to be in developemt

[Slowpokeking]

The 2nd movie was awful, if they keep doing that they will ruin this franchise.

[Ikari]

I think they are likely dropping the characters and plot from #2 and going back to basics which would be smart. That means the return of Hans and a re-grounding of Elsa.

Hopefully not, Hans is among the weakest and least charimastic Disney villains and the character is not a believable antagonist for Elsa, or even Anna.

They will be expanding the mythology of the franchise upon what they wrote to Frozen 2 (as hinted in the finished movie, and seen in early draft). Two movies is likely a necessity to get the story told, as Frozens can't be stretched to "epic" lengths, and songs take up lot of screentime. Perhaps F3 even ends in a cliffhanger.

Villain is likely either returning King Runeard, or outside invaders symbolizing industrial world looking to take over resources of the North.

[jmc247]

Hopefully not, Hans is among the weakest and least charimastic Disney villains and the character is not a believable antagonist for Elsa, or even Anna.

The money direction isn’t that way.

First you are right about Hans, but the original film went through some big last minute revisions. In the original both Elsa and Hans (who was an admiral) were both kind of d$&ks. They toned Elsa way down at the last minute after ‘Let it Go’ played real well while amplifying Hans negative attributes massively.



Though a lot of the redeemable features of Hans were already too late to get rid of in the film process. I felt when watching it the end depiction was too big a leap from the start, but it is what it is.

The winning direction for Elsa is to return her grounding as a magic queen living in the human world. They took her out of it and turned her into a snow goddess. The winning direction for Hans is helping to save not conquer Arendelle.

[Catlady in training]

The 2nd movie was awful, if they keep doing that they will ruin this franchise.

The box office doesn't agree with you

[Slowpokeking]

The box office doesn't agree with you

That's because the 1st movie's impact, box office doesn't reflect quality right way.

[Ikari]

Though a lot of the redeemable features of Hans were already too late to get rid of in the film process. I felt when watching it the end depiction was too big a leap from the start, but it is what it is.

The winning direction for Elsa is to return her grounding as a magic queen living in the human world. They took her out of it and turned her into a snow goddess. The winning direction for Hans is helping to save not conquer Arendelle.

Yes some features of Hans early seem to conflict with later twist, undoubtedly because of the revisions made along the way, up until the last minute. But on the same vein, bringing him back as redeemed character after outright plans of murder would feel just as off.
Also, Frozens have quite large cast for such short movies, so that limits what characters you can bring in.

That's because the 1st movie's impact, box office doesn't reflect quality right way.

I don't think F2 is particularly disliked and I don't remember it being panned. Though some fans did not like the ending, which partly separated the sisters and it felt off-character for Elsa. They will be happy to hear F3 & 4 are likely to fix it.

As for me, F2 had very good primary plot, with poorly executed secondary plot (Anna's insecurities and Kristoff's clumsy proposals). Overall song quality was close to F1.

[Slowpokeking]

I don't think F2 is particularly disliked and I don't remember it being panned. Though some fans did not like the ending, which partly separated the sisters and it felt off-character for Elsa. They will be happy to hear F3 & 4 are likely to fix it.

As for me, F2 had very good primary plot, with poorly executed secondary plot (Anna's insecurities and Kristoff's clumsy proposals). Overall song quality was close to F1.

F2 got terrible main plot and didn't resolve well.

No villain nor clear opposition at all.

IMDB score is 6.8 compare to the first one's 7.4, RT score is also lower compare to the first one.

[Ikari]

F2 got terrible main plot and didn't resolve well.

No villain nor clear opposition at all.

IMDB score is 6.8 compare to the first one's 7.4, RT score is also lower compare to the first one.

Score drop of 0.6 is hardly terrible.
Not every story needs a villain, Moana did not have real villain, in fact neither did F1. Hans was antagonistic character, but not really a 'villain' in the sense that he would have created the problems protagonists faced. Frozens are character driven movies, largely based around conflict between Elsa and Anna: Introvert vs extrovert, seniority vs juniority, magic vs mundane.

[Catlady in training]

Score drop of 0.6 is hardly terrible.
Not every story needs a villain, Moana did not have real villain, in fact neither did F1. Hans was antagonistic character, but not really a 'villain' in the sense that he would have created the problems protagonists faced. Frozens are character driven movies, largely based around conflict between Elsa and Anna: Introvert vs extrovert, seniority vs juniority, magic vs mundane.

This, so much. People keep saying they want new ideas, but then complain when the story structure deviates slightly from what they know.

And RT scores and similar don't mean anything since people decided that review bombing things they don't like (usually movies and TV shows that dare to have any diversity) is their new mission.

[Slowpokeking]

Score drop of 0.6 is hardly terrible.
Not every story needs a villain, Moana did not have real villain, in fact neither did F1. Hans was antagonistic character, but not really a 'villain' in the sense that he would have created the problems protagonists faced. Frozens are character driven movies, largely based around conflict between Elsa and Anna: Introvert vs extrovert, seniority vs juniority, magic vs mundane.

You are the one asking for score.

It's not just without a villain, but without conflict and struggle, the whole main plot was extremely weak.

[Ikari]

You are the one asking for score.

It's not just without a villain, but without conflict and struggle, the whole main plot was extremely weak.

Well, I can only say that the majority of the critics and moviegoers seem to think that while not a classic, the sequel was not terrible either. This, perhaps not coincidentally, aligns with my own view. The franchise itself is doing fine, Elsa ships mad amount of merch.

First Frozen actually has worse IMDB score than Tangled (7.7) or Moana (7.6), yet of this trio it's Frozen which is regarded as a classic.

[Slowpokeking]

Well, I can only say that the majority of the critics and moviegoers seem to think that while not a classic, the sequel was not terrible either. This, perhaps not coincidentally, aligns with my own view. The franchise itself is doing fine, Elsa ships mad amount of merch.

First Frozen actually has worse IMDB score than Tangled (7.7) or Moana (7.6), yet of this trio it's Frozen which is regarded as a classic.

Few big downfall/flop's problem started out with the flopped movie itself, the recent ones were examples.

Frozen 2 was terrible on its plot, the good part were just the characters from the first one, but you can't rely on it forever.

I've never watched Moana but Tangled was a masterpiece, I don't think being worse than that means Frozen is bad.

[Ikari]

Frozen 2 was terrible on its plot, the good part were just the characters from the first one, but you can't rely on it forever.

Au contraire, characters are what can keep a franchise going as long as the principal actors can draw breath. Look at Pirates of the Caribbean - it was obvious by 3rd movie that the series had ran its course, but they cranked out more, because people wanted to watch Jack Sparrow. Even more obvious with popular TV shows and series.

Moana is about same level as Tangled/Frozen, maybe the main character is not as interesting.
As much as I like Tangled (and the subsequent series), I would not say it's a masterpiece level. I think it was perhaps overshadowed by Pixar offerings at the time: it still saved the studio, as it was very close that they were merged with Pixar.

[Slowpokeking]

Au contraire, characters are what can keep a franchise going as long as the principal actors can draw breath. Look at Pirates of the Caribbean - it was obvious by 3rd movie that the series had ran its course, but they cranked out more, because people wanted to watch Jack Sparrow. Even more obvious with popular TV shows and series.

Moana is about same level as Tangled/Frozen, maybe the main character is not as interesting.
As much as I like Tangled (and the subsequent series), I would not say it's a masterpiece level. I think it was perhaps overshadowed by Pixar offerings at the time: it still saved the studio, as it was very close that they were merged with Pixar.

Not when your plot and story is keep going down. Characters would be ruined in a matter of time if you can't offer good story for their development.

[Frontier]

I liked the characters in Moana and Tangled/Frozen.

Tangled was able to get a 3-season show out of it's cast.