Talk:Frozen (2013 film)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023
Minor typo in the Plot section. "gives Olaf a furry small cloud to experience warmth" should probably be "gives Olaf a flurry small cloud to experience warmth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:A7F:D560:170:66A:AE52:4442 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022
68.199.144.108 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC) With A Third Film In Development
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail [✉️] 18:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

London west 178554
Fhthfhuhgr 24.47.2.151 (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022
Can you please fix the release date? It was released on November 27, 6 days after November 22 in 2013. Can you fix that? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:3CCB:32FF:2BF1:4FB0 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean in the infobox,Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Looks like the 22nd was the start of its first release and we just use one of them per WP:FILMRELEASE Cannolis (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2023
2600:1700:3890:A10:F548:6123:371B:72E9 (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Frozen Was Released December 25, 2013!
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on/inspired by
Why don't we just put the "based on" attribute back to the article, as well as the Frozen II article? You may claim that "Inspired by" is not the same as "based on", but really, the film's "story inspired by" credit is no different from The Jungle Book's "Inspired by the Rupyard Kipling "Mowgli" stories" or Oliver & Company's "Inspired by Charles Dicken's "Oliver Twist" credits, if you've watched them. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The main reason I can see for using "inspired by" is that the resulting film contains no elements from the fairy tale that inspired it. If we used "based on", one can then ask, "what elements the film are based on the fairy tale"?  If we say "inspired by", we don't have to answer that question. Sterlingjones (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Addition of another sub-section
In the "Legacy" section which has a "Cultural Impact" sub-section, could another sub-section titled "Social Impact" be included? This could include subjects like, for example, that when the film was first shown and distributed, there was a significant increase in the number of tourists visiting Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Not needed. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
@Wingwatchers: Since I don't understand most of what you wrote due to bad grammar and my talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss this issue, I will write here. You wrote "Frozen captivated audiences worldwide, with children in the US and UK obsessing over the film and repeatedly singing its songs", which does not fit with the paragraph and which I think is redundant and generated by AI (obsessing over). I did not "incorrectly states that its the box office success that led to the creation of the franchise.", the box office success and popularity of the film DID led to it. Rude of you to assume I "lack extensive background and contextual knowledge". ภץאคгöร 20:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Nyxaros I merely summarized the most important part of the Cultural impact section, and the fact that its the cultural popularity that inspired the franchise is correct per body. You provided no context for that so therefore the reader will assume that its the box office success that inspired the franchiase. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to note that I have attempted to approach you on your talk page to discuss this issue. I admit I might have been harsh in my approach but I do not wish to initiate another series of personal attacks because I already have enough already. Due to fast typing, I might have missed a word in my statement, so allow me to correct the minor missed words which you exaggerated as so-called bad grammar and incomprehensible: "I am afraid I have to revert your edit on Frozen because your edit does not reflect the profound cultural impact described in that section; to make it worse you straight off delete that sentence from that article. The fact that it captivated audiences worldwide which you claimed violates (WP: NPOV), see MOS: FILMLEAD and WP: WBA) is neutral and violates no manual of styles because it reflects the significant cultural impact in the body. I supposed you misunderstood/misinterpreted this as editorial bias, i.e. I intentionally phrased it this way due to your mention of (WP:NPOV). But by doing so, you incorrectly state that it's the box office success that led to the creation of the franchise. As you lack extensive background and contextual knowledge, please refrain from rewriting the lead again"
 * Your revision, which reads: "The immense success, partly due to popularity among child viewers, inspired the creation of a franchise, which included an animated short in 2015, an animated featurette in 2017, and a feature-length sequel, Frozen II, in 2019." is less engaging let's just say and randomly interested children into the sentence out of nowhere when we were boasting about the box office success. My sentence acts as a transition from that and clarifies that it is in fact the cultural impact that caused the creation of a franchise, as opposed to the box office. Your revision also undermines the significant cultural impact of the film, and in a later revision, you straight off deleted that sentence from the lead. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition I want to acknowledge that you act in good faith and it is indeed silly of me to phrase it in such a disputed way. I also want to apologize for assuming WP:Ownership but keep in mind that we both wanted to maintain this article to the highest standard. You said that you "shortened this part and paraphrased your verbose addition (which also did not follow WP:NPOV), see MOS:FILMLEAD and WP:WBA" but I want to argue that the part you trimmed is in fact necessary for context and transition purposes as described above. I wrote "Frozen captivated audiences worldwide, with children in the US and UK obsessing over the film and repeatedly singing its songs" because I want to empathize its significant cultural impact, and how it captivated children to an extraordinary extent. Your revision, "The immense success, partly due to popularity among child viewers, inspired the creation of a franchise, which included an animated short in 2015, an animated featurette in 2017, and a feature-length sequel, Frozen II, in 2019." fails to address this emphasis and awkwardly transition from the earlier box office commentary-"It also became the fifth-highest-grossing film of all time and the highest-grossing film of 2013.
 * "Obsessing over" is completely natural as I was trying to summarize "This phenomenon was noted by various journalists and even prominent figures like former UK prime minister David Cameron[272] and actors Amy Adams,[273] Ben Affleck,[274] Kevin Costner,[274] and Vince Vaughn, who found themselves dealing with their children's Frozen obsession.[275]". Again, I want to apologize for hurting your feelings and my initial failure to explore it in-depth with you. I hope you accept my apologies. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nyxaros I am deeply sorry for my behavior but at the same time I face the dilemma of maintaining and improving this article to the highest quality. Is there anything else you want me to clarify? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * How about the screenplay and story credits on the introduction of each this article and the Frozen II article? You may want to look at the WGA screenwriting credit system article as well the Princess and the Frog, Wreck-It Ralph, and Zootopia articles so you might have a better understanding. Please note that I'm not asking you to change the three aforementioned movie articles. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Brian K. Tyler Hmm I am not sure. Mentioning both the story and screenplay is challenging because it required continued use of the word "The" in the beginning of both sentences which is deemed monotonous by other editors, but under rare circumstances exclusion can certainly be made. I have implemented your suggestions accordingly, and thank you for the suggestions. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I managed to rephrased it in a way that mentions both the screenplay and story while avoiding the continued use of the word "The". Cheers. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is not possible that your message "hurt my feelings" because I don't care at all, I just pointed out your behaviour, which I believe would be considered "rude" by many people.
 * The paragraph, starting with "In early 2014, many children in the US and the UK", should not be summarized in the lead like what you wrote. Especially when "Frozen's immense success was attributed to its ability to capture the spirit of classic Disney animations, offering strong female characters, catchy songs, and a unique subversion of the traditional villain role. The absence of a typical villain, relatable sibling relationships, and themes of self-acceptance and sacrifice also resonated with audiences globally."
 * There is no mention of surpassing Toy Story 3 OR being surpassed by The Lion King (2019 film) in the article. Therefore, in addition to being redundant, it is unsourced. The film was, of course, a significant success during its theatrical run.
 * Lastly, "obsessing" or any related word included in the article is not "completely neutral", you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. ภץאคгöร 07:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nyxaros Hmm. If you can make your revision flow and engaging while also addressing the film's significant cultural impact. Go for it Wingwatchers (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But I respectfully disagree. I think my revision is find at it is and does not violate any MOS. Wingwatchers (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "he paragraph, starting with "In early 2014, many children in the US and the UK", should not be summarized in the lead like what you wrote. Especially when "Frozen's immense success was attributed to its ability to capture the spirit of classic Disney animations, offering strong female characters, catchy songs, and a unique subversion of the traditional villain role. The absence of a typical villain, relatable sibling relationships, and themes of self-acceptance and sacrifice also resonated with audiences globally." How do you propose we summarize it without oversimplifying it to an extent that it basically lost its intended meaning
 * "Lastly, "obsessing" or any related word included in the article is not "completely neutral", you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts. I rewrote that part to make the tone more encyclopedic and neutral, and I don't think reversion would help the FA review. It is not me who is obsessing, it is the children. I cannot grasp how this is interpreted as bias. Can you eloborate? Wingwatchers (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While reviewing your edit I am afraid I am far from please of the changes you made. You yet again is trying to undermine cultural impact of the film by removing very very essential aspects about the film's cultural influence. Wingwatchers (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nyxaros Also I dont understand why keep doing this because the article now feels incomplete and lost its intended meanings. I think you might have misinterpreted certain words such as captivated as uninformed, non-encyclopedic tone. But by doing so you devoid of the cultural impact section of the film's cultural significance. It reads weird and fails to capture the essence of "Frozen-mania".  Wingwatchers (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to remind you that encyclopedic does not equates to an unengaging and weird tone. The overall cultural impact section now reads very dull. The leads again feels so weird that it doesn't reflect the gigantic box office section. While I appreciate your efforts, I in good conscience cannot accept these changes as constructive so therefore I will request external intervention from other more experienced editors/admin to oversee this. A part of me is leaning to classify this as vandalism, but I just want to say the delivery is let's just say... slightly... off. Of Course all editors are encouraged and I trust you act in good faith but I failed to see the picture here. You attributed your reasonings as "you really should read WP:NPOV and also avoid stating opinions as facts." but I in fact did not because I was merely reporting its significant impact; and nothing of this article is near being considered opinions. The revision you presented failed to address the film's overwhelming cultural impact and conveys a limited meaning, and you misinterpreted the film's overwhelming influence as something that I exaggerated. Your current revision is neither accurate, comprehensive, and engaging, undermining a substantial portion of the context. This begs the questions of neutrality because I simply cannot understand why you are trying to censor the film's cultural and commercial influence by removing essential information about the respective subjects, in both the lead and the body. For now, I suggest we both should lay low and await external thoughts. Wingwatchers (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Third opinion: Frozen (2013 film) (revision 1183750626) to current revision Wingwatchers (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dyatlov Pass incident
An interesting piece of information could be added to the Legacy section in relation to this film and the Dyatlov Pass incident investigation. E.g.:



136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We already have Frozen-mania and in my opinion, this will not fit very well into the article. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Editorial Note
Just note that the fucked up Box office section above is not my fault but the editorial misconception and misinterpretation of others. I did the best I could to save the article from being cast down, however, this does not mean that the fate of this article is definitive. In the coming weeks, I will rework the Box office section using professional analyses, however, I will take full responsibility for the minor grammatical mistakes I made while transforming this article from essentially a quote farm. Look at it, it went from this to this which in my opinion definitely qualifies as a major improvement. While my ambitious attempt to bring it to FA may have also invited some undesired guests (not necessarily referring to them of course) I believe it is a necessary process to bring this article to FA. I am not as narrow-minded as our guests here not necessarily referring to them of course. It only took me 1k edits for me to this article to transform this article into its current state but I am willing to make 10k more edits to bring this article to FA and proudly display it on the main page. This GAR process reminds us to never give up in pursuing our dreams. More importantly, it teaches us that fate is not absolute, it teaches the fundamental theme of life, persistence against failure, and it teaches us to not let our enemies triumph over us. Cheers! Wingwatchers (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyway after a night of sleep I became very energized, both mentally and spiritually. I have began re-organizing the Writing section and fixing the silly grammatical mistakes, and I will began working on the Box Office shortly. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following this closely for a while because I've been too busy. I just caught up on the discussions in the preceding sections on this talk page and the withdrawn FAR nomination.
 * I fully concur with User:TompaDompa, User:AirshipJungleman29, and User:Nyxaros's cogent, detailed, and accurate criticism.
 * I concur with User:TompaDompa's nomination of this article for GA reassessment. The closure was clearly premature. I will support any new nomination.
 * I concur with User:AirshipJungleman29's tactful highlighting of civility issues in the GA reassessment discussion. Please review Civility, Assume good faith, and No personal attacks. The above post on 26 November 2023 at 04:26 UTC is an example of such issues: it uses an obscene word in the first sentence and appends a variety of negative characterizations to "others" and "guests".  (And to be crystal clear, this post complies with all three policies by focusing on the content, not the contributor.)  The FAR nomination and GA reassessment pages reveal that all editors providing criticism of the article were acting in good faith, raised valid constructive criticism, and were only trying to help.  It was also inappropriate in prematurely closing the GA reassessment to tell other editors to "get lost".
 * It will probably be necessary at some point to develop community consensus in favor of a revert back to a last good version in 2021 or 2022. I am far too busy to deal with that.  I will support any editor who does.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Coolcaesar Ok I will revert it back to 2021. I also concur with you. I will also delete this account once for all. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok it has been reverted. Cheers.@Coolcaesar Frozen (2013 film) (Diff ~1187014984) I have never touched this article. Wingwatchers (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

When was Frozen released?
I was celebrating the film's 10th Anniversary today (November 27, 2023). I checked the wikipedia to be sure that today was the day Frozen was released 10 years ago from today and when read the article, I saw that the film was released on November 22, 2013, not November 27, 2013. This is weird as previous edits said that the film was released on November 27, 2013 as well as Google and the Disney wiki on Fandom. I don't know who to believe now. Can someone help me out? When was Frozen released? JMATIUAS (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The movie was released on 27 November 2013. But it had a limited release on 22 November 2013. But on 27th, the movie was released widely. So the official date goes to 27 November, not 22nd. Dipro Biswas (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)