This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Franchise potential section is currently too large; I see that Coolcaesar is the main editor who has contributed to it and continues to expand it. At this rate, the section's length will be far out of hand (if it's not already far out of hand to some people). One option, with regard to tackling its length, is to break the section up into two or three subsections. I think we should refrain from including more than four subsections for it, and this is because I don't think that many subsections are needed for it. Subsections, when looking at the table of contents, can make a section look bigger than it is; per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, we don't need and generally should not have subsections for significantly small content. So I say no to several small subsections or to tiny subsections. A few small subsections are preferable. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
During The Walt Disney Company's 2014 first-quarter earningsconference call on February 5, 2014, Iger congratulated "all those involved with Frozen" and reiterated that it would "be going to Broadway."[6]: 4 He also noted that Frozen "has real franchise potential" and predicted that "You will see Frozen in more places than you've certainly seen today."[6]: 8, 13
Merchandise
In the same earnings call, Iger alluded to "high demand for Frozen merchandise," which was expanded upon by Disney senior executive vice president and chief financial officerJay Rasulo: "Over the most recent quarter...if I had to pick out a single item, I would say Frozen items were the single most demanded items at Disney Stores."[6]: 4, 22 In March 2014, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that Disney had sold almost 500,000 Anna and Elsa dolls, with a 5,000 limited-edition run selling out online in only 45 minutes in January.[7] Demand only increased further after the mid-March home video release; toy industry expert Jim Silver explained home video enabled children to "watch it over and over again" and "fall in love" with the film's characters.[8] Chris Buck mentioned in an April 2014 interview that the directors had not bought anything for themselves "thinking it wouldn't be a problem, and now everything's sold out!"[9] By mid-April, U.S. consumer demand for Frozen merchandise was so high that resale prices for higher-quality limited-edition Frozen dolls and costumes had skyrocketed past $1,000 on eBay, both Disney and its licensees had arranged for air freight to rush fresh inventory to retailers besieged by desperate parents, and some of those parents had begun publicly venting their frustration through social media outlets such as the Disney Store's Facebook page.[8][10][11][12][13]Needham & Co. analyst Sean McGowan compared the situation to the 1980s Cabbage Patch Kids craze, where "the demand is ... driven by the scarcity because of the social status attached to being able to find it".[14] Fed up with the shortage, some parents took a "do it yourself" approach, and others went for custom-made replicas on crafts sites like Etsy.[11][13] Similar shortages of Frozen merchandise were reported during spring 2014 in the United Kingdom,[15][16] Canada,[17] Australia,[18] New Zealand,[19] France,[20] and Singapore,[21] though not as severe. In a mid-April interview, Disney Store Vice President Jonathan Storey admitted that although Disney had high expectations for the film, "demand went even higher than they thought it ever would."[22] He also promised that more Frozen merchandise would be delivered to Disney Store locations immediately through regular shipments, and that new products were being developed for release throughout the year.[22] By the end of April, Disney Parks had imposed a five-item limit at its stores, while Disney Store had imposed a two-item limit, restricted the release of the most popular items to store opening on Saturday mornings, and required guests to enter into a lottery on those mornings just for the chance to purchase the very popular Elsa costumes.[23][24]
During the Walt Disney Company's 2014 second-quarter earnings call on May 6, 2014, Iger said Frozen "is definitely up there in terms of, probably, our top five franchises",[25] and that the company will "take full advantage of that over the next at least five years."[26] He also explained Disney was still working on the musical, as well as publishing, interactive, and theme park projects.[25] Rasulo disclosed that nine of the ten best-selling items at Disney Store in the second quarter were Frozen-related.[25]
Theme parks
The meet-and-greets with Anna and Elsa at Disneyland and Epcot had been initially sponsored by The Walt Disney Studios as short-term temporary attractions to promote the film, but in February 2014, Disney Parks decided to extend them indefinitely in response to unprecedented demand.[27] By the beginning of March, wait time was reportedly as long as four or five hours to see Anna and Elsa, which fueled outside speculation about whether Disney Parks would respond with additional Frozen-specific attractions.[28] After wait times at Norway Pavilion in Walt Disney World's Epcot reportedly reached six hours,[29] in mid-April the Anna and Elsa meet-and-greets were finally moved to Princess Fairytale Hall at Magic Kingdom, where park guests could use the new FastPass+ reservation system (part of Disney's MyMagic+ project) to bypass the lengthy wait time.[30][31] To date, Disney's Fastpass has not been made available for the Disneyland meet-and-greets, meaning that a journalist who tried standing in line on April 23, 2014 (a non-holiday mid-week morning five months after the film's premiere) had to wait three hours.[29]Jezebel.com commented on the phenomenon, "Word has it that those characters are like the Beatles now, attracting large crowds of screaming females."[10] However, as of April 2014, there have not been any plans for Anna and Elsa to join the Disney Princess line-up, though Disney Store confirmed that it was still possible the characters would be added to that franchise in the future.[22]
Possible sequel
At the end of March 2014, Del Vecho confirmed that there had been "discussions on how we can support the [film's] characters at other locations [and] [w]e are also discussing making a theatrical [musical] version of Frozen, but these things take time."[32]
As for the possibility of future sequels, Del Vecho explained that Buck, Lee and him "work very, very well together, so I believe we will be developing a new project. But I don't know what that is right now."[32] In late April, Walt Disney Studios chairman Alan F. Horn said that "we haven't really talked about a sequel" because the studio's current priority is the planned Broadway musical, which will require "four or five" additional songs to be written by Lopez and Anderson-Lopez.[33][34]
Television
The film will play a factor in the fourth season of a television series produced by Disney-owned ABC Studios, Once Upon a Time. On May 11, 2014, the conclusion of the show's third season finale revealed a new storyline that will incorporate elements from Frozen, centering around the arrival of Elsa, the Snow Queen, after her urn was accidentally thrust into the time-traveling portal from the Enchanted Forest back to present-day Storybrooke. The show's executive producers later explained that Disney had not asked them to do a crossover.[35][36] Rather, they fell in love with Frozen when it premiered in November, saw it three more times, then developed a story idea in February and successfully pitched it to ABC Studios, the ABC network, and then Disney brand management.[35][36][37]
Miscellaneous
During spring 2014, several journalists observed that Frozen was unusually catchy in comparison to the vast majority of films, in that many children in both the U.S.[38][39][40][41][42] and the UK[43][44] were watching Frozen so many times that they now knew all the songs by heart and kept singing them again and again at every opportunity to the distress of their hapless parents, teachers, and classmates. Columnist Joel SteinofTime magazine wrote about his young son Laszlo's frustration with the inescapable "cultural assault" of Frozen at preschool and all social and extracurricular activities, and how he had arranged for a Skype call with lead actress Bell after Laszlo began asking why the film was made.[45] When Laszlo asked whether Bell knew when she made Frozen that it would take over kids' lives, she replied: "I did not know that people would not let it go. No pun intended."[45] When Terry Gross raised a similar point with songwriters Lopez and Anderson-Lopez in an April interview on NPR, they explained there was simply no way they could have known how popular their work on Frozen would become.[46] They were just trying to "tell a story that resonated" and "that didn't suck."[46]
On May 20, 2014, it was reported that Feld Entertainment's Disney on Ice was planning an ice skating show based on Frozen with assistance from the film's producers and directors, and that the show would start touring in September 2014 starting in Orlando, Florida with a cast of 39.[47][48]
(References:)
^Rothman, Lily (24 February 2014). "Ice, Ice, Baby: Frozen inspires a totally chilled-out cult following". Time. 183 (7): 48–59. Disney has already announced plans to bring a musical version to Broadway, and theme-park incarnations have been hinted at.
^"Frozen on Stage". FrozenTheMusical.com. Disney.com. Retrieved February 8, 2014. "Be among the first to receive news about the stage adaptation of FROZEN as it becomes available."
^Sheridan, Patrick M. (May 12, 2014). "Disney plans to milk 'Frozen' success". CNNMoney. Retrieved May 13, 2014. 'This is definitely up there in terms of our top, probably, five franchises,' said Disney CEO Bob Iger in a conference call last week after Disney reported a 27% surge in profits. 'So you can expect us to take full advantage of that over the next at least five years.'
^Cite error: The named reference Tully was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Did you make any changes to the content (cutting, rewording, etc) or just rearrange them into subsections? And I recommend that you should change "Frozen in Disneyland" to "Theme parks", it sounds more general. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the content has a valid place in the encyclopedia but it gives too much weight to this topic within the Frozen article, and would need to be downsized. It may be too early to create a Frozen (franchise) article (and quite frankly I'm really worried that this whole push for a franchise is going to result in a bunch of sub=par rushed entertainment), but that is a possible home for all this info.--Coin945 (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In several occasions did Disney officials mention that a franchise based on Frozen would take place in the future. So expecting a separate article for this doesn't violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL. These pieces of information will be precious if an article like that is created, which sounds pretty sure to me. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Well...a seperate article would be exaggerating. Maybe we apply this first, then discuss about how to summarize the content?Forbidden User (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Re-reading this content, for the sake of the Frozen article it could be condensed down to a single "Legacy" section, which explains all the ways that Frozen has become a bonefide phenomenon (DYI merchandise, kids singing it nonstop at school etc).--Coin945 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
And editors singing nonstop while editing Wikipedia, hah? :))) To @Forbidden User: We have already got quite a few articles about franchises themselves, so we may create it. But what I'm wondering here is that, with the current bits of information, is it possible to conclude that a franchise will surely take place in the near future? ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but we don't need additional information. We are talking about summarizing and downsizing. Do you have any ideas on that?Forbidden User (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I was replying to Quenhitran's question "is it possible to conclude that a franchise will surely take place in the near future", by collecting a series of sources that seem to suggest (either by using the term "franchise", or describing different ways the Frozen universe has expanded out) that it will indeed soon be a franchise or already be considered one. Thank you for your concern though.--Coin945 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
To put in my two bits: As others have correctly inferred, it was my intent that 90% of that material would eventually have to be broken off into a "Frozen (franchise)" article at some point because of WP:UNDUE. Then the relevant section in this article can be reduced to a brief mention that (1) the music turned out to be wildly addictive for large numbers of children (2) leading to wild craziness at Disney Parks and Disney Store in the spring of 2014 and (3) Disney is also exploring an ice skating show, TV crossover, etc. I wasn't in the mood to be bold at this point and create the article myself because I think we need to give it another four months to see if the Frozen craziness cools off. But if we can develop consensus in favor of starting that article and transferring that content sooner than later, I see no problem with it. Notice how Bob Iger transitioned so quickly from speaking of "franchise potential" to one of their "top five franchises" within a single quarter. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we should wait until the franchising is underway before the page is created. Right now, it's just in the "talking" stage. — Confession0791talk07:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
As a bystander who don't do much editing to this page, I do also feel that there is too much content in this section. Sure enough separating them is a good call, but it still seems like a lot of stuff, especially the merchandise and theme parks portion. They should not make up such a big bulk IMO. Looking forward to some summarizing. :) Lesmiserables95 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I alertedWP:Film to this discussion. At this point in time, the most that section should be is four or five decent-sized paragraphs of summary; some editors would state two, three or four decent-sized paragraphs of summary for that section. And of course no subheadings would be needed for so few paragraphs on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, given the complaints above about the length of the Franchise potential section, you should take it easy on expanding it. I see no need to keep expanding it. Wikipedia is not for covering every aspect of a topic; it's for summarizing aspects of a topic, especially for summarizing the most important aspects. And as far as I can see from the above, the WP:Consensus regarding that section is to significantly reduce that section. You should not be trying to force a WP:Spinout article by making that section so huge and subsequently affecting the WP:SIZE of this article. Now we have two more subsections for that section, which are unneeded and make the section look bigger than it is from the table of contents. Why does ice skating need its own subsection? Per the MOS:PARAGRAPHS guideline I pointed to above, that little piece of material clearly does not need its own subsection. Nor does it need expansion so that it complies with MOS:PARAGRAPHS; what it needs is to be merged back into the Miscellaneous section where it was. If no one else is going to take the initiative and do so, then I may very well significantly cut the Franchise potential section down. And if you or anyone else reverts me on that, I may very well start a WP:RfC on the matter, since this discussion is barely improving a thing on the matter and since WP:FILM is currently ignoring it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
So noted. I concur that the Franchise potential section probably should be condensed to a compact form (and the more detailed content can be pulled from the article history for an eventual franchise article), but condensing in many ways is much, much harder than expanding. If you want to take the first attempt, I'll try to not get in the way. If I feel you've gone too far, I'll discuss my concerns on the talk page first. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, to achieve GA rank, the section will sooner or later have to be cut. Coolcaesar, you may copy your original text to Talk:Frozen (2013 film)/Franchise potential and continue with the development of this section the way you have always been. The condensed version of the section should be renamed to "Miscellaneous and popular culture". ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the section is about franchise aspects, I think that the title of the section should be clear about that; so I don't agree with renaming it to "Miscellaneous and popular culture." Flyer22 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I can see the heavy emphasis on "franchise" in the section as well, so I agree with Flyer22 on that. By the way, I'm going to get rid of the tiny sections, one of wwhich added by an IP (and I wonder why no onne reverted that edit). The section content above will be updated. Coolcaesar, welcome to share your proposals here! Just add a talk quote below.Forbidden User (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't create that; Quenhitran did. But changing this discussion section in this way is an unhelpful distraction, in my opinion, because it's not what you originally proposed and therefore it's not what the comments responding to your proposal are based on; it would be much better if you provided a diff-link showing your changes to the article instead of changing the proposal with each update. Flyer22 (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
There's been a lot written on the implications of Frozen as an LGBTQ "coming out" story, with many parallels between Elsa's journey in the film with young people accepting their sexuality. It seems odd to leave that out of the article. Many of the references seem deliberate on Disney's part, perhaps to show subtle support without fully stating so. Disney's been long known as supportive of the gay community, though from a corporate perspective it might be dangerous for them to put a full stamp on something like this.
Is there a plan to incorporate the LGBTQ angle at some point? I don't know how the timelines for articles work so someone may be doing something behind the scenes and hasn't posted it yet. If so, apologies.
Thanks! 38.75.16.42 (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Supporter
Reviewers have named numerous things that Elsa's powers could represent, so it doesn't seem neutral to just pick one and present it as fact. Idina Menzel, Elsa's voice actress, actually says that Elsa's story is about not being "afraid of sticking out or showing off" and "own[ing] those things that make us really unique".[1] --1ST7 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The point is that there has been a lot written about the perceived LGBT aspect in WP:Reliable sources, as shown by this Google search (controversy included); that viewpoint should be in this article, and will eventually be included in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Critics outside the film industry, such as [[evangelical]] pastors and commentators, claim that the movie promotes normalization of [[homosexuality]]. Other critics believe the main character, Elsa, represents a positive image of [[LGBTQ]] youth, viewing the movie as a metaphor in some capacity for [[Coming out|openness]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Petersen|first=Kierran|title=Disney's Frozen and the 'gay agenda'|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26759342|accessdate=27 March 2014|newspaper=BBC News|date=27 March 2014|location=Washington DC Bureau|language=En}}</ref>
For the record, I don't think the "perceived LGBT" section is necessary at all. It seems obsessive-compulsive to make note of every singe fan discussion/perception that exists. (Especially when most other Disney animated film articles are not nearly as extensive) At this point, this just feels like "The movie is popular, so that means the article should be huge and include every fan discussion!" Just because the movie is a hit, doesn't mean that the article needs to include notes about every Internet fan discussion.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikicontributor12, see the #Appropriateness of a Lesbian cartoon for children? section below (meaning its subsections included), where there is WP:Consensus to add LGBT parallel material to the Frozen (2013 film) article; as that section shows, the addition is based on various valid reasoning. It's not just fans that have made the LGBT parallels; it's professional film critics and other commentators as well. The topic is so prominent with regard to the discussion of the film Frozen that it would be a disservice to readers and to the article not to include material on it in the Frozen (2013 film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, there are no professional critics saying so. This is extremely important. Please be noted. In case I'm wrong, I apologise in advance. Please quote who you are refering to if so. Forbidden User (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, you do not have to ping me to the talk page using WP:Echo; I'm watching the article/talk page. As for professional critics, some of them have made the parallels by entertaining the topic when commenting on the discussions regarding the matter, and some of them have especially cited "Let It Go" as a LGBT anthem. This is shown by simply searching the matter in the aforementioned Google searches. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah just want to butt in here but I wrote this part "which was taken to mean that a difficulty exists due to a limited range of facial variation for female animated characters because of the need to keep them "pretty."" and now I think that it should be replaced with what Lino DiSalvo actually said rather then my paraphrasing, so I suggest we changed it from:
Allegations of sexism occurred following a statement by Lino DiSalvo, the film's head of animation, which was taken to mean that a difficulty exists due to a limited range of facial variation for female animated characters because of the need to keep them "pretty."
to
Allegations of sexism occurred following a statement by Lino DiSalvo, the film's head of animation who said to Fan Voice‘s Jenna Busch: "Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, because they have to go through these range of emotions, but you have to keep them pretty"
I think it only fair if we are going to provide snip quotes of other responding to Lino DiSalvo, then we should have a quote of what Lino DiSalvo actually said right there in the main text. Anyone disagree? Also could someone read through Wikipedia:Quotations and make sure all the quotes in this section are up to standard. BerserkerBen (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
BerserkerBen, here is what Forbidden User applied for you. That stated, summarizing is sometimes best. I don't think it's necessarily unfair that one person gets their statement quoted word for word and the other person doesn't. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Well its not a matter of any person verse any other person it a matter of who starts a controversy of importants verse someone responding to it, we should have DiSalvo quoted, perhaps even in full instead of a snip that could be "taken out of context" anyone elses quotes about his statement may very well be superfluous. So your right fair was the wrong word. BerserkerBen (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Problematic sources
I've found that refs #,28,60,61,88( Sam Adams seems to be prominent, but I don't know if it's suitable here) are from unreliable sources, per WP:Reliable source. Please help fix them, or just delete whatever it references to.Thanks.Forbidden User (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for noting. I'm kind of fed up with seeing "IMDb" so I don't wish to see people clicking into it and then use its content as a source... anyway it's fine if you wish to revert it. By the way, when working on Walt Disney Animation Studios I came across Walt Disney Family Museum with quite a lot of useful information, is it a reliable source? I may use it on this article and similar ones if so. Thanks a lot!Forbidden User (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for undoing your edits again :( I know that's not a good thing to do but... Anyway, the Walt Disney Family Museum is a very good source, you can use it but don't forget to archive it first (web.archive.org) since such pages are changed quite invariably. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 01:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
We use a lot of blogs around here; obviously personal blogs hosted on Wordpress, Blogspot, etc are avoided generally... SlashFilm, yes, of course, it's reliable. About the GA review, I'm always attentive! :D ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
#160 deleted. I know that Nikki is the founder of Deadline.com, but she should have her Twitter account confirmed for her tweets to be used here. Moreover, the $800,000 figure contradicts our other reliable sources, including BOM, so I have temporarily deleted it.
#184 replaced. Disney Times seems fine, but I found another from The Wall Street Journal, clearer and more reliable.
Others seem fine to me. Read the "About" page of each site to find out more about it.ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 02:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Quenhi, I've confirmed that CarttonBrew possesses a reputable editing system, so I deleted them from the list. However, Disney Insider is written by members who can be you and me ---- which doesn't sound like a reliable source. The Disney Blog is a blog, so that's unreliable. I can't find the histories of LaughingPlace and A113Animation, so from their banners, I dertermine that they are fan sites of films. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I sadly added ref #60 as a problematic ref, as it is from Disney Insider. By the way, cleared three problematic references. See the edit summary.Forbidden User (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I should clarify that official blogs like Disney Parks Blog, which is written by Disney officials, are not included as unreliable sources. Please inform me if I'm wrong.Forbidden User (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
CartoonBrew falls into that category, as the chief editor has good reputation. However, if posts (in this case, a quiz) do not contain foul language or copyright infringement, etc, Disney does not interfere. Per with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, I don't think a random fan is creditial...so please explain further. Anyyone else has an opinion?Forbidden User (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
All things considered, we are spending too much time on the sources. You can't always cite the reliable sources guidelines to instruct us, those guidelines are just community-written and they are ambiguous in most cases. We try our best to find reliable third-party references for every claim we make, but we also have to accept that the level of "reliability" is only relative, not absolute. Fan sites are not always bad, the thing is they are actually most of what we have. We only avoid fanmade articles that are too biased or have fandomly content (such as "The film is superior", "It's the best one ever made", etc). Fanmade articles that contain facts should be considered. I'll let the "Disney Blog" one pass because we have an alternative which is Box Office Mojo, but I'd like to ask you not to be too critical.
And saying back and forth, I think that those who spend their time and efforts to find, interview and write detailed facts about the making of the film, who else could do that but the fans? However, saying that doesn't mean that we let the unreliable sources go, we must go on digging them out or the GA reviewer will do it for us. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You've just spoken what's on my mind these days. I recently looked at Jack Sparrow, WP:DISNEY's only FA about a character, and found that the reference requirement is not as harsh as I've thought. Perhaps #28,60 and 88 (which can be easily verified by summing up the songs' length) can go. I shall look at #61 in further detail. I apologise for being too harsh on this aspect. Anyway, thanks for your persistant contributions, Quenhi!Forbidden User (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
If he's the Kyle Burbank I found he has expertise in animation.. so we may let it go. Of course I will check the refs again --- but I think this part has been well-fixed. We should focus on the subsection below.Forbidden User (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikilink in references
For the editors who added wikilinks in their references, please share your reasons of adding those wikilinks so that I can give a complete explanation to the GA reviewer. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There were plans for a Blu-Ray 3D version of the film to be released in the United States and Canada, but the Blu-Ray 3D version was cancelled by Amazon.72.211.239.152 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
As told by Quenhitran, I observed the vandalism situation and found that since late May, there have been 4-5 vandals (7-8 at times) per day, which is somehow too high a rate for PC protec.tion. For the GA review's sake, I've requested a semi-protection until 22 Sept 2014. Afterwards, the PC protection should be staying indefinitely (or will it be? I don't know how PC protection works.).Forbidden User (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I checked the vandalism from 25 May to today (18 June). I will probably not reply until 25 June for exam.Forbidden User (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Does it seem kind of trivia if we include Rapunzel's appearances somewhere in this article, 'cause I see it has been covered in several notable websites? The connection between Tangled, Frozen and Mermaid is of course a "fandomly" trivia; but the easily-spotted appearance of a previous animated character doesn't happen every day. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 07:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Had Anna directly referenced or even conversed with Rapunzel and Eugene in the scene, it might be worth including here. As it stands, the character's appearance was merely a sight gag and a nod to Tangled, nothing more. It is confirmed by the producers that it is indeed Rapunzel, so it would belong in her article and not the ones for either film (TangledorFrozen). --McDoobAU9313:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Citations
You don't need to add citations to the lead and they definitely look excessive in the cast section. Throughout there's numerous example of over sourcing with 3 or more citations to support one fact which makes it look cluttered. I suggest going through and cutting down or moving the multiple ones into clustered citations as one.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You should be talking about the LGBT section. As that section is very sensitive, we made a consensus to keep the sources. It may seem crowded but it's for WP:NPOV. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
New source about Elsa and LGBT
Resolved
Not sure if this source has been used, but in this interview with Idina and Julie Andrews on WWHL, she responds to a caller question about this very issue. Her response may prove useful for that section. Here's a youtube link to that NBC broadcast:--Coin945 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The section does not need any expansion. There is consensus the current version is fine, and any additional content / reference is not needed.Thank you anyway.Forbidden User (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for my misjudgement. Everyone here, I have noted Coin945 to summarise Julie's response to the old Elsa and LGBT issue. Perhaps it worths one to two lines in the section, which does not harm its WP:Due weight.Forbidden User (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry for my typos. I wrote that via my phone). I'll just transcribe the conversation rather than potentially misquote it:--Coin945 (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Caller: My question is for Idina: what are your thought on the theories going around about Elsa being a lesbian?
Idina: *laughs*
Host: Oh wow.
Idina: I haven't heard about that actually.
Host: Really?
Idina: Elsa's a lesbian? Why? Because she's been in the closet and she sings Let It Go? And... I don't know...
Host: Well you make two compelling arguments right there.
Idina: Well, I mean, I don't know about that, I haven't thought about that, but I have thoguht about what a wonderful message it is for people that might be struggling with their own sexual prientation and accepting who they are. It's not just a movie for little kids, you know, in that way, it's a much broader theme and it celebrates and allows people to feel freer about who they are, then I'll give it that.
I don't see why inclusion of the Idina material is needed; it doesn't offer anything that is not already covered there, unless one thinks we should make a point there that Frozen is not just for little kids. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the differences in Classics numbering should be highlighted. With Winnie the Pooh being not considered a "Main Disney film" here in the UK, this film is considered the 52nd. I'm not trying to start an edit war, but this is true! Visokor (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no edit-war, you're following BRD. I reverted mostly on Forbidden's undue-weight point. Is it really worth mentioning or relevant to the reader even when "53rd" is so prominent in the lead? If anything, maybe a footnote? It felt random and out of place. DrNegative (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Links in the lead are no substitute for having links in the text, especially for readers that come in via a link that takes you to a subheader, and skips the lead like I did. You should not be forced to search through 35 headers of information to find a link to Robert Lopez. Only by your definition is that considered overlinking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
We already have two dates in the infobox, one for the "official" world premiere and one for the wide-release date in North America. Editors are now trying to add a third advance screening date. However, this is the only place where this date is mentioned (i.e., no discussion in the article of this release). So the question is this: do advance screenings outside of the premiere of a film need to be in the infobox? I saw Wreck-It Ralph before the world premiere at an advance screening through D23, but I wouldn't advocate changing the release date in the infobox accordingly. What do others in the community say? --McDoobAU9320:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
If we were to adhere to WP:FILMRELEASE, then the earliest release date for the movie should definitely be there. I don't see why the November 10 screening at NYCIFF should not be included. Eventhorizon51(talk)20:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked at FILMRELEASE and read the whole sentence: "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." If the film appeared at the NYICFF, then I would agree with your statement. However, our own article on the festival says it runs in March, and the 2015 festival is scheduled for the same time next year. So the November release would not have been part of the regular festival. Reading more into our article on the festival, it says that the festival sponsors monthly screenings of films that fit its purpose. This means their performance of Frozen is most likely part of that series, thus making it a special advance screening and not an entry in their standard juried festival the previous March. As such, the El Capitan Theatre world-premiere screening should be the first date mentioned. --McDoobAU9321:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Films often have advance press screenings or test screenings etc that we don't include. However, if it was a screening that was accessible to general members of the public then yes, I would say it should be included since it would be the first public exhibition of the film. The acid test here is could you or I have purchased a ticket and watch the film on that date? Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Betty's comment, I think the November 10 screening of this movie should not be considered a "special" screening that should be excluded. Just because Frozen isn't part of the annual three week long festival doesn't mean that the monthly presentations are no longer part of the festival. That's why I think the November 10 screening should be included, as it is part of NYICFF and provided for by WP:FILMRELEASE, being part of a film festival. Eventhorizon51(talk)21:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's presume that the information on the source is correct, that a performance was scheduled for November 10 and was offering tickets for sale. I have two related questions: (1) Did the screening actually occur? (things do happen, and all this source says is it was scheduled); and (2) What is notable about it? At this point your only proposed addition for it is in the infobox. What else are we going to say about this screening? --McDoobAU9321:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Notability is the criteria for article creation, so isn't applicable here. It probably isn't notable to the point that we would create an article about this particular screening of the film. However, if it indeed was a publicly accessible screening of the film then it is significant to the point that it is the first time the film could be publicly viewed, and by convention we do include such dates in film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I think the fact that it was scheduled is a pretty good indicator that it did occur (unless there is a reliable source saying that it was cancelled). Secondly, I think the fact that it was the first release date in itself qualifies it as notable. I don't know if it's mandatory to discuss every single release date in the body of the article, but I think that at the very least, it should be included in the infobox. If the infobox is the only place in the article where that date appears, so be it. If editors wish to add more information about it in the body, they can do so separately. Eventhorizon51(talk)21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually it can be, but admittedly that's beside the point. My point on notability is that we're so far only going to add this in the infobox (if it actually occurred). The infobox only summarizes what's in the article; it's not intended to provide content that doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. I believe that's the argument another editor used to undo this earlier, so it seems like we need more than just an advertisement for a screening that happens to take place prior to the red-carpet premiere. As to Eventhorizon's point, advertisements aren't reliable enough for sources on home media release dates, so why should this advertisement get better treatment? --McDoobAU9321:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia policy that mandates the discussion of all information in infoboxes? The way I see it, WP:FILMRELEASE says that films' first release dates should be listed in their infoboxes, and that's what we're trying to add. Eventhorizon51(talk)22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
There is: per MOS:INFOBOX: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article." --McDoobAU9301:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It could be quite easily integrated into the "release" section in the same way other dates are, but then again the run-time and "language" aren't mentioned in the article either. I don't really understand the opposition: if it was indeed a publicly accessible performance then by all accounts it should be included in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Simple: 1) no proof it occurred and 2) no indication this is anything other than a sneak preview advance screening, pay or otherwise, which FILMRELEASE discourages as setting for the release date of a film. A reliable source describing the event would help a lot since it would establish it, especially since they exist with a red-carpet or other event premiere (like Pocahontas premiering in New York's Central Park). --McDoobAU9301:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
FILMRELEASE makes it explicitly clear that "sneak previews" do not apply to festival screenings. If it is verified that a festival screening did indeed take place then I will be supporting the motion for it to be added to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
As indicated above, the provided source clearly states that the presentation is sponsored by the New York International Children's Film Festival, but the timing of the screening (November) shows that it was not part of the juried festival (March). Would I presume that a festival screening takes place during the main event itself, such as a film that premieres at Cannes (asUp did)? --McDoobAU9302:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
13-level indent?????? Anyway, that's not the main point. We should not adhere to non-policy, non-guideline statements as strictly as policies and guidelines. The MoS says we should use infoboxes as a summary, then we should not thwart this to adhere to something in a template description. Stop citing anything like guidelines and policies. Secondly, sources should directly support the statement, per WP:Verifiability. "Scheduled" ≠ "occured", don't think that "indicators" can work as sources and throw that out as if it's common sense - look at False-consensus effect. Thirdly, per WP:Due weight, it doesn't have any weight in the article, while whether it has is way too disputed. Now I have two policies and one guideline against the inclusion. Your turn.Forbidden User (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
McDoobAU93 cited WP:IINFO as well, and I don't see anything that has countered its application.Forbidden User (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources covering the New York screening—it was covered by US Weekly and was attended by celebrities such as Naomi watts—so WP:V and WP:WEIGHT are not valid reasons for excluding the date from the infobox. In the context of film's release—or publication in general—the film's debut is clearly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE: it marks a significant event in the film's release phase and also inaugurates the copyright term. I also question your reasoning as to whether an infobox should only summarise the contents of the article; it seems to me there is quite a bit of selective application of Wikipedia's guidelines here, since a consistent approach would require that the language and the run-time are also removed from the infobox, neither of which are mentioned beyond it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You'd better not edit before gaining consensus. Cite a source to prove that its copyright term starts at Nov 2. Besides, cite a source that says it's available to the general public (not just celeb). Make sure they are RS. I'm not asking about adding them, but that's for verifying that it is not special screening. Reverted for now. If you can give the sources, put it here and revert me.Forbidden User (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Concur that this US Weekly source isn't much better. It's one sentence and doesn't describe the nature of the screening (celebs-only or general public? juried festival entry or promotional show?). Without evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is this is a promotional advance screening and thus not notable per FILMRELEASE. --McDoobAU9315:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Something to look out for in published reliable sources
The Disney Animated iPad app has some interesting exclusive materials on the making of Frozen, but it would be difficult to cite them here, because a lot of things apparent from those materials require comparisons to the final film which is original research in violation of the "No original research" policy. For example, the app has an early version of the "That Happened" clip published by WDAS on YouTube, the scene where Kristoff and Anna are trying to lower themselves down the cliff to get away from Marshmallow. It shows several important differences between the early versions of Anna, Marshmallow, Olaf, and Kristoff, and the final versions. (E.g., Anna was far more skittish about jumping off the cliff.) Hopefully at some point a reliable source will discuss the evolution of the film as revealed in the materials published in the app and then this article can cite to that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like something in the Development section. Enthusiasm appreciated, Coolcaesar! We should wait, of course. My opinion is that Disney may publish something alike by itself.Forbidden User (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Another issue to look out for in published sources is who were the different animators working on different segments of the film. Several Frozen animators and TDs have already started publishing their demo reels on Vimeo to show off their work. From looking at those (they gray or black out scenes worked on by others), and knowing the supervising animators haven't posted demo reels, it's possible to infer which scenes were probably animated by the supervising animators. Unfortunately, I can't post my own guesses into the article because that's original research, but hopefully at some point more sources will eventually clarify that issue. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Planning ahead for splitting off "Franchise potential" section as "Frozen (franchise)" in September
Once Upon A Time season 4 premieres on September 28. As there has been feedback on this page that the "Franchise potential" section is getting really long, I plan to break off that section into a new article on "Frozen (franchise)" by then. At that point, it will no longer be hypothetical that the film is actually giving rise to real spin-off media products (beyond the usual wave of books and merchandise that saturates retail outlets for a couple of months with every Disney film).
My plan is to take each of the major points in the section (crazy lines in parks, merch shortage, etc.) and summarize it in one sentence that will remain in this article (under the heading "Franchise"), with the idea that anyone looking for the gory details can go to the full article. Any comments? --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Question - how come the album/soundtrack has not one mention here, when it had just as phenomenal success as the movie? Academy award, no. 1 in 9 countries ... it should probably be in the lead in my opinion, but I'd like others to comment. JTdaleTalk06:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... the music section here has talked enough about the music. Anything more relevant to the soundtrack article belongs there. Talking about the soundtrack here distracts readers from the content about the film. If they want to know about the soundtrack, use the {{main}} link to the soundtrack article.Forbidden User (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a sentence or two about the soundtrack's performce wouldn't go amiss. But true, we have an article on the soundtrack for a reason, hence the {{main| template. Putting the info into the franchise article would also be a good idea. it's what I've been doing with the other franchise articles: Hercules (franchise), Mulan (franchise), Pocahontas (franchise).--Coin945 (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, our music subsection is under section Production, so the soundtrack release results are not relevant. You can say the songs are individually sold as a soundtrack (with no results, whatsoever) and cite a RS, though it's rather meaningless with the {{main}} template indicating the existance of a soundtrack. Looking at it myself.Forbidden User (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In reception there are critics' response on music (in passing mention), and to me it's all enough. Spin-offs like the soundtrack should be in the franchise article, though it won't take much weight there either.Forbidden User (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In the context of the film (the main piece of media Disney is producing for this project), wouldn't the soundtrack fall under marketing, as it is a tie-in released beflore the film is released to create and spread buzz?--Coin945 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack, a music subsection in Production is enough. We have one here (and it is a large subsection). Isn't it replicative to repeat it in a "soundtrack" section? Though its performance (sales result) can be mentioned under the Franchise (potential) section, set to be split into a new article later.Forbidden User (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A quote from the said MoS subsection:"...it can be covered in a "Music" subsection of the article's "Production" section. Otherwise, a "Soundtrack" section can be used to provide a summary background about the film score or the collection of prerecorded songs."Forbidden User (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A soundtrack would count as merchandise because it is packaging something from the film—a franchise is sequels, musicals i.e. things that extend beyond the film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose The article about "freezing" may be located at Freezing but it is still overwhelmingly the WP:Primary topic for the thermological term. It's a part of every day lexicon i.e. frozen food, my toes are frozen etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, too many things using that title, as big as this film is. Agree with Betty Logan on this one. --McDoobAU9302:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose the primary topic is clearly that in the article freezing. frozen objects are a worldwide phenomenon, and for a much longer period than this film. The industry of frozen things is much larger than the entire worldwide gross of this film. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose obviously not the primary topic. Given the phenomenon the film creates, it's still misleading to have such a common word redirected to a specific film. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
More new information to look out for in published sources
Just found something interesting. It's a video of the Lopezes being interviewed on stage by the head of Williams College's music department at the Williams College Alumni Weekend, June 12-15, 2014. Most of the presentation goes over information already discussed in other interviews, articles, and the "Art of" book. Key points not previously disclosed elsewhere are as follows:
3:00 - Kristen says she wishes someone had told her when she was growing up that there were women songwriters. (She then goes on to discuss a point she's already explained elsewhere: she spent many years trying to get into Broadway theatre but kept getting typecast in nun-in-New Hampshire roles and finally realized one day her talent was as a lyricist.)
6:30 - Bobby says Book of Mormon is in many ways a Disney parody.
8:10 - Kristen says "The sandwiches come first" when they start writing songs, they "do a lot of talking, drinking Diet Coke," working through character motives.
8:28 - Bobby says "When we came on board the project was so different ... Elsa was the bad guy from the very beginning of the story to the very end until the very last second where she kind of turned good. No, she didn't really turn good."
8:42 - Kristen says "She didn't turn good. She kidnapped Anna from her wedding, and, and then took her up, and, and was going to freeze her heart, like it was a whole different story."
8:50 - Bobby says "And at the end she came down the mountain with a whole evil snowman army to invade the town and get Anna back so that her heart could properly freeze."
9:01 - Kristen says "This story didn't sing to us."
9:07 - Bobby says "We tried to put some songs in it and they all fell on the floor, they got cut."
9:15 - Kristen says "The person who wrote the script got fired, and we got a new person ... and it was someone who was really excited to write a musical and we all kind of started from scratch again."
11:00 - Kristen and Bobby discuss their process of creativity (which has been discussed elsewhere). One additional point Bobby clarifies (which had been only implied elsewhere) is that he plays the piano but Kristen doesn't really play the piano that much. But they are both involved in singing (i.e., developing melody and lyrics).
19:07 - Kristen says "There was a time, like last year, that we just thought this was going to pull our whole career [sic] like it was we were going down. We were like maybe, 'I could become like a birthday party clown or something.'"
19:20 - Kristen adds, "The movie wasn't working until about July of last year."
19:24 - Bobby says "We only wrote this song about a year ago, For the First Time in Forever. We didn't have it [before then] ... this song became the linchpin of the whole movie."
30:31 - Kristen says they were brought in when "they knew it was going to be a sister story. They knew it was going to be loosely based on The Snow Queen. And they had a script that was just a first pass at a script. And they brought us in and we started talking about where songs could possibly go. And then in this case, which is unusual, the whole script imploded. And we got to build it together with Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck. So we really got to put a lot of our DNA" into the project.
31:50 - Kristen starts discussing the early table read explained by Lee elsewhere where Menzel and Bell were present. It turns out that the Lopezes were present too.
32:07 - Kristen says "They sat John Lasseter right between Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel reading this script that was really flawed. But at the end, suddenly, suddenly someone wheeled out like a Casio. And, and, they started singing Wind Beneath My Wings in harmony over him. And Bobby and I went, like, 'Ohhhhhh! What are they doing!' John Lasseter was in heaven. He was like, 'Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel have to be in the movie!' From that moment on."
33:50 - Bobby says about Fixer Upper, "They gave us the idea, although we should have come up with it in the beginning, of using a lot of people from New York for this number."
34:08 - Bobby says that "the other people from that number were all from Book of Mormon, and Avenue Q, and Kinky Boots."
34:12 - Kristen explains the Fixer Upper chrous is the girl chorus from Kinky Boots combined with the Africans and Mormons from Book of Mormon.
37:05 - Kristen says they had another song called "Hot Hot Ice" which was replaced with "In Summer." It was like "Hot Hot Hot meets Simon and Garfunkel. It didn't work."
37:55 - Bobby discusses how they kept writing songs for the scene in which Elsa strikes Anna in the heart which kept getting cut, like "Life's Too Short", and then they wrote "For the First Time In Forever" and it was Kristen who realized there should be a reprise because "the girls have never really said what's on their minds to each other."
38:30 - Bobby says "It was really the right idea, made the film feel complete and made the score seem like a real score."
39:30 - Kristen says, "It was actually the minute we realized it was a reprise, I think I wrote it in 20 minutes and I pitched it. Bobby was in LA fixing 'Do You Want To Build A Snowman?' And I pitched it to a whole room of our team. And it got in the movie. So that was good."
42:00 - Kristen says that the reason Oaken got his name is that "Wandering Oaken" was Jennifer Lee's idea for an anagram on "Naked Norwegians," a reference to the family in the sauna.
44:00 - Bobby says they started working on Frozen in January 2012, and then worked on it for about a year and a half.
44:44 - Bobby and Kristen point out that a portion of "We Know Better" did end up in the movie, right before the bridge in "Let It Go" where Elsa starts singing about frozen fractals.
45:40 - Kristen says Frozen is definitely going to be a musical, "Bob Iger said so."
45:46 - Kristen mentions there was a retreat (apparently for that purpose) at John Lasseter's vineyard.
45:55 - Bobby says there definitely will be a stage show "in a few years".
I am thinking about inserting some of these points into this article and/or related articles (i.e., the articles on specific songs). It looks like from the "Translations and transcriptions" section of WP:NOR that it should be okay to cite the video directly as a reference, as long as the quotes transcribed from it are accurate. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Make sure that everything you picked to add is not trivial. I've seen enough fan trivia in Pirates of the Carribean series articles. By the way you wanna push this to FA? It does look so.Forbidden User (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is becoming rather cumbersome at the moment. Chocka-block full of information which is fantastic, but starting to become a bit difficult to navigate through too. (Have you seen the contents template recently? o.O). I have already noted that a Frozen (franchise) article can easily be created - a type of article that is already common on Wikipedia (Snow White (franchise), Winnie the Pooh (franchise), The Lion King (franchise), The Emperor's New Groove (franchise) etc.), but is it worth having a discussion on splitting off other sections into articles, such as Developement of FrozenorDevelopment of Disney's The Snow Queen (which could go into much more detail about Disney's attempted adaptions of The Snow Queen, or Music of Frozen (which would talk about the deleted songs, something I don't think the soundtrack article should do)? I can tell Coolcaesar has information busting out of his sides that they want to share with all of us here on Wikipedia, and I know the feeling of having to downsize and remove awesome tidbits. So this could be a good solution.--Coin945 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
As you often get articles deleted, I should be honest and tell you that we have WP:GNG and WP:IINFO which can knock those articles down (excluding the franchise). Deleted songs are deleted—they don't have much weight anywhere besides fan wikis. Our development section is really lonnng, but a separate article will not pass the GNG. See Barack Obama—you will find that Frozen is far from the longest articles.Forbidden User (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Forbidden User. The way this is drafted, nearly all the subsequent sections will no longer make sense if the Development and Music sections are absent. I also agree that those sections aren't notable enough to stand on their own as articles. Also, as Forbidden User has guessed, I am thinking about pushing this to FA in the fall (after severing the franchise section into a new article and properly summarizing it here).
Coin945, here is some advice in the form of a paraphrase of the most famous line from McCulloch v. Maryland: We must never forget that it is an encyclopedia that we are expounding.
The main issues I was trying to figure out was how to finish the development story because the directors and producer have carefully avoided publicly discussing certain key issues: what was wrong with the original plot, whether there was an earlier script, and what actually caused the hold-up at the very end which forced major rewrites from February to June 2013. It looks like from the Lopezes' talk that it was probably "Life's Too Short" which wasn't working and they finally calibrated the relationship between the sisters just right with "For The First Time In Forever."
Also, you'll notice that I've only inserted those details from their talk into this article that drive forward the narrative of how the movie was made. For example, the joke about becoming "birthday party clowns" neatly encapsulates the Lopezes' fear (and presumably that of the filmmakers as well) that the film could have flopped. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
Not doneIt looks like like he has none. I'll close it as not done.Forbidden User (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
