Page 1 of 1

Author:  paulrace [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Frozen?

No, it's not a Christmas movie, but it's a family-friendly incorporation of some of the themes of Hans Christian Anderson's "Snow Queen," which would NOT make a good Disney movie.

The songs include the oscar-winning "Let it Go," which is the "Ice Princess" Elsa's version of Wicked's "Defying Gravity," except that the Ice Princess isn't really wicked, not one little bit. She's just victim of a spell that makes her to ice what Midas is to gold, and THAt has made her a danger to everyone she loves.

The real heroine is Anna, who plays the part of Gerda in Anderson's tale, going to the ends of the earth to save someone she loves.

Eventually Anna proves that her love for her sister is stronger than her fading attraction to a fortune-hungry suitor with more brains but no more scruples than Beauty and the Beast's Gaston. A number of nut case broadcasters have drawn all sorts of twisted conclusions from the ending. Apparently the love of a worthless and evil man should have prevailed over the love between sisters. Don't bother listening to those folks, about this movie or anything else they say - they've exposed themselves for the claptrap-loving demagogues that they are. (Who knows, being worthless and evil men themselves, they were probably rooting for the creep.)

If you're one of those people who needs to know if a movie's ending is happy before you go to see it, I'll warn you that the ending is happy, just not for the creep.

By the time you see this, it will be on video and or cable. It's nicely done.

Author:  paulrace [ Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Frozen?

Here's a funny follow up. Toy manufacturers realized too late that boys liked Frozen as much as girls did. But when they went to the store looking for action figures and accessories, they discovered that all of the Frozen merchandise was in the "girls' toy" section, as often as not in pink packaging. So they refused to shop in that aisle. The toy manufacturers lost millions as a result.

At the same time, mothers of daughters were getting a little cheesed that all the construction sets, like Legos, that they had grown up with were now soundly ensconced in the "boy's toys" section, generally in blue boxes. Who decided that building toys were the special province of little boys, and girls needed to be steered toward Bratz dolls or other condescending crap in order to maintain their gender identity?

I'm the father of three grown daughters who once shared the largest single collection of Legos in the neighborhood, I have to say that if the kind of distinction I see in the toy aisles now had existed when they were little, it would have cheesed me, too.

When Target announced that they were no longer going to divide toys up by suppositions of gender, lots of folks "lost it" entirely. The implication was that letting girls play with Legos or letting boys play with action figures that came in pink packaging would destroy their "gender identity."

Others complained that they wouldn't know how to shop for their children or grandchildren if the "boys' toys" were mixed up with the "girls' toys." What they're really saying, of course, that they don't know their own children or grandchildren at all. Or that they prefer to have Mattel or Kenner steer their children's mental and emotional development than to take charge themselves.

Is it worth reminding folks who get their entire worldview from extremist web-pages and broadcasters who are literally paid to act outraged about trivial issues and lie about big ones, that their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents grew up in an era when most toys and games were considered suitable for children of either sex? The very fact that the complainers are here to complain proves that they have little to fear.

Don't let the creeps win.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group