I need a mango.
Late note, I nuked the D Mo S complaining about how Disney is apparently treating instant marriages. There's nothing said in the movie that directly mocks the earlier princesses, only mocking instant marriage. So if there's something out of the movie that mocked them, then it's not in the movie and thus invalid for a D Mo S. And they claim that Anna and Kristoff starting a paced relationship at the end contradicts the message of not marrying a stranger, which makes absolutely no sense.
A late note. I nuked an entry that said that Anna was praised as a heroine for what happened with Hans. If anything, she was scolded twice for her hasty wish of marrying him. She is not treated like a hero for that. And the entry continues as an out-of-universe complaining.
Hide / Show Replies
I nuked the part talking about Hans not knowing how to swim and Anna not being convicted. Hans is shown swimming, rendering the first point moot. Elsa, royalty and a Disney princess, is convicted of murder. So if the court somehow decided Anna wasn't justified, they would convict her too.
I need a mango.
Does the huge rant about Anna punching Hans bug anybody else? Don't get me wrong, if you don't like Frozen, or parts of Frozen, no problem. To each their own. And yes, a D Mo S is centered around opinion, though sometimes with arguments to back it up. But after short analysis, the arguments are where the entry falls apart, badly, and they make up the majority of it.
Their argument begins by claiming that the power behind the punch came out of nowhere except for a "strong feminist icon" and that it delved into Mary Sue territory.
- First problem: Anna is clearly shown with competent strength in the movie, twirling around with a metal bust, effortlessly lifting an arm of steel-plated armor, and carrying herself through a snowstorm while freezing to death from the inside.
- Second problem: Even if Anna wasn't that strong, to punch Hans over the rail of the ship and into the water is completely possible. Hans's footing (an essential factor) was certainly weak at the time, given the likely rush of adrenaline to his legs.
- Third problem: Even if his footing was fine, the punch she gave didn't require much strength. She didn't send him flying, she sent him falling over the rail. That's not superhuman strength, that's basic transfer of momentum in tandem with gravity.
For this, we'll take this picture as reference ( [1]
◊ ). In three of their points, they say the punch ruined Anna's heroic characterization by showing corruption, that she should have listened to Hans's point that Elsa froze her heart, and that the action was misandrist.
- First problem: The claim of corruption. By forgiving her stressed sister for an accident out of her control instead of forgiving a clearly sadistic man for two completely intentional attempted murders that happened no less than thirty minutes before, she is apparently corrupted.
- Second problem: The claim of misandry. Misandry is prejudice or discrimination against men. Anna did not punch Hans because he was a man. Look back to the picture linked above. Hans was not attacked because he had a penis and testicles. He was attacked because minutes before he made a clear effort to either chop Elsa's head off or slice her body in half, sickeningly grinning the whole time, not in self defense, but so that he could steal her kingdom.
One of their other points is that there was little chance of Hans being able to swim, and had he drowned, Anna would be even more guilty than he would have been. For this one, let's refer to this picture ( [2]
◊ ) from the first act of the movie, where he's clearly seen swimming.
- First problem: Hans is, as said before, clearly seen swimming. With one hand holding up a rowboat as he uses the rest of his limbs to stay afloat, and not panicking in the slightest. It's quite safe to say he is fully capable of swimming, and that the accident was brought up during their hours-long conversation afterwards, thus Anna would be fully aware Hans is capable of swimming. One of their points is that Anna's punch must have left the man with minor bruising at most, so unconsciousness and resultant drowning is out of the question.
- Second problem: Let's say Anna isn't aware Hans can swim. There are plenty of ways to save him. On a post-Renaissance ship that was surely bringing important political figures and was just thawed from ice by magic, the safety equipment would have been perfectly intact. A rope (or ten) to throw down, or a life preserver made out of cork, perhaps. If not that, then the woman who can freeze a platform of ice for Hans to grab on to. Or the reindeer we've clearly seen can swim could dive in and save him. And then there's the man who mines ice from frozen lakes for a living that would know how to swim for sure and could dive in and save him.
- Third problem: "She wouldn't be convicted of it because she's a princess." Like it or not, the present court is clearly shown agreeing to the execution of Elsa, the Queen of Arendelle, the highest authority, and a Disney princess to boot, because they thought she had just murdered her own sister. And seeing as there were members of the Arendelle Guard accompanying Hans, it wasn't just the court. If they somehow did decide Anna was unjustified in striking the attempted murderer and usurper into the water, then yes, they would absolutely convict her, royalty or not. Royalty is not the reason the main characters were forgiven for their mistakes. They're forgiven because they fixed them.
What I'm referring to last here is their accusation of "Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male". As said before, Hans is not being punched because he doesn't have ovaries, he's being punched because he's a sadistic attempted murderer. Anna is not supported and forgiven because she's a woman, she's supported because she's giving said sadistic attempted murderer retribution.
Can somebody please tell me they're also seeing all of these issues with the rant?
Edited by WhoNeedsAMango Hide / Show Replies
Following Septimus Heap in the discussion page to Western Animation: "Not really. Unless you convince them to retract their DMOS it can't be pulled."
Well, no, as I said back on that discussion page I know the entry can't be pulled. I'm not gunning for removal, I'm just trying to point out what I see wrong with it and seeing if anyone else feels the same. As I said at the start, a D Mo S is centered around opinion. It's their arguments that I'm focusing on.
Edited by WhoNeedsAMango
Are we sure? To quote the main page, "Caveat: A Moment may be removed if it is blatantly untrue or otherwise breaks the rules. However, if you do remove an entry, move it to discussion and explain what is wrong (blatantly untrue, multiple entries for the same work, unsigned, etc). Even if the rules were broken, people should know what they did wrong."
Pretty much all of this seems to fit the bill for proving their points blatantly untrue. Even the "short analysis" (courtesy of the already huge and quite frankly unbearable Frozen Hate Dumb, no less) of the punch that they cite. Said analysis tries to say Anna's punch would have no power to it when she isn't even moving the rest of her body... except she is, and that's not even touching how the punch would absolutely have power behind it according to the most basic laws of physics.
Oh, and not to mention the post just below it claiming the message was "It's wrong to harm people, even in self defense, unless it shows what a cool/strong/funny female you are" barring the fact that Elsa was about to kill two people who we can safely assume won't survive impalement or hundred-foot drops into chasms, and Anna punched Hans, who we can also safely assume knows how to swim, into the fjord.
Edited by HesGoneCarson He's gone, Carson!
The "Not really" of Septimus Heap was in answer to the following post: "Has the criteria been met? I'm fine with just leaving the counterarguments here if not.", after the mention of the caveat.
Edited by MagBas
Weren't those under a completely differently written post? Do neither of those posts prove the D Mo S's arguments blatantly untrue?
He's gone, Carson!
If it didn't meet the criteria last time, it's not going to meet it this time. And honestly, to the author's credit (because it actually is pretty major) they changed the first part of their entry from antagonistic to respectfully neutral. Honestly, I don't like their arguments at all, but that's a move I respect very much and I think it deserves mention.
Edited by WhoNeedsAMango
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: the entries on this page before that one are understandable. The Rock Trolls erasing Anna's memory? Yeah, I can see why people would be upset. Fixer Upper? Yeah, it kinda did clash with the current mood and was a lousy transition into the third act. Prince Hans being the bad guy? I personally liked the reveal and found Hans to be pretty clever overall, but I can see people not being too happy about it. But Anna punching Hans in the face being a derailment of Anna's character? I'm sorry, but the bullshit levels are off the charts! I am in full agreement with Who Needs A Mango on this one; the flaws in that entry are too noticeable not to notice. It also doesn't help that it takes up almost half the page.
I deleted this:
This is just a speculation and a supposition.