8 ms·

What doesn't make sense about it? The only thing that makes it a surprising twist is that it's a Disney movie where we expect our villains to wear cloaks and fu

What doesn't make sense about it? The only thing that makes it a surprising twist is that it's a Disney movie where we expect our villains to wear cloaks and fur coats and twirl their mustaches and explain their motivations in Act 1. Otherwise the seeds are all there. He's an ambitious thirteenth son of a king, literally ignored by his brothers and likely neglected by his own parents. He has no future in his own land. He says outright that he's "been searching [his] whole life to find [his] own place." After just one night he's trying to marry the naive young princess desperate for love (which was, btw, already established). He jumps at an opportunity to take charge and win the hearts of the people when Anna rides off. If this were anything but a Disney movie, by that point everyone would be asking themselves what he's really up to.

atomicnumber3 6y ago
This is always my take on Hans. If anything, this is Disney subverting their own trope of "instant true love". They literally make fun of it for the entire movie. I think every single major character has either a serious (Elsa) or flabbergasted (Sven [sic]) response and openly and directly derides her for it.
- veddox 6y ago
  > If anything, this is Disney subverting their own trope of "instant true love". Oh, absolutely. And that's one of the plot's redeeming features in my eyes. But it's a long stretch to get from the lovesick princeling to the ruthless, sinister usurper. At the start of the movie, Hans is naive and/or willing to capitalise on Anna's naiveté, but there is no indication whatsoever that he is actively evil. And as the OP showed, there would have been ample opportunities for the scriptwriter to foreshadow any such negative side to his character; and there would have been much better opportunities for Hans to carry out his evil plans.
  - anotherman554 6y ago
    Hans is simultaneously trying to destroy the older sister, woo the younger sister, while also making the people think he's a good person who should lead them. That's a very tough line to walk on so I don't think he had better opportunities.
- jfengel 6y ago
  And yet the end up giving in to it in the end, with Anna marrying Kristoff. That plot line follows a pretty standard trope. It felt a little pasted on. I think the movie would have been slightly more successful (to me) by eliminating Kristoff, so as to not lose its core focus on Anna and Elsa. Elsa's decision to be a hero or a villain, to face or run away from her fear, is the real core of the film. You'd still need to find a way to keep Sven. The prince for the princess should be optional (as it was in Moana); the animal companion is not. This isn't criticism, just a thought experiment. I have genuine criticism of the sequel, which I felt undercut the themes much more strongly.
  - cooperadymas 6y ago
    While Kristoff and Anna do stay together, fall in love, and get engaged (spoiler alert Frozen 2!), the writers continue to play with the love at first sight trope with their relationship. His "act of true love" (as pointed out by Olaf) does not thaw her heart. It isn't true love, not yet. Only the love between the sisters is enough to heal her in the end. It goes a little deeper than that, but that's how I rationalize it at least :)
    - jfengel 6y ago
      Which is why I found it disappointing that the entire point of Frozen 2 was to separate the sisters, and undermine their love. It felt like the sequel missed a lot of what made the first one tick. I was a bit surprised to see several commenters in this thread saying they preferred it. I suspect that they're people who weren't moved by the first one, and found the backstory aspects of the second more interesting. But that's just a guess.
throwaway5752 6y ago
Agreed. They even animated him to noticeably look up at the chandelier before he pushes the crossbow away from Elsa (https://youtu.be/afnhCvicqdI?t=141 https://youtu.be/afnhCvicqdI?t=141), clearly intending to drop it on her and arrange the accident. They drop other hints. I mean, the whole "you can't fall in love with someone you just met" is a bit of self-referential subversiveness to more traditional Disney plots, and implies a separate motive. It's a bit subtle for kids, but I didn't think it was unsurprising.

atomicnumber3 6y ago

This is always my take on Hans. If anything, this is Disney subverting their own trope of "instant true love". They literally make fun of it for the entire movie. I think every single major character has either a serious (Elsa) or flabbergasted (Sven [sic]) response and openly and directly derides her for it.

veddox 6y ago
> If anything, this is Disney subverting their own trope of "instant true love". Oh, absolutely. And that's one of the plot's redeeming features in my eyes. But it's a long stretch to get from the lovesick princeling to the ruthless, sinister usurper. At the start of the movie, Hans is naive and/or willing to capitalise on Anna's naiveté, but there is no indication whatsoever that he is actively evil. And as the OP showed, there would have been ample opportunities for the scriptwriter to foreshadow any such negative side to his character; and there would have been much better opportunities for Hans to carry out his evil plans.
- anotherman554 6y ago
  Hans is simultaneously trying to destroy the older sister, woo the younger sister, while also making the people think he's a good person who should lead them. That's a very tough line to walk on so I don't think he had better opportunities.
jfengel 6y ago
And yet the end up giving in to it in the end, with Anna marrying Kristoff. That plot line follows a pretty standard trope. It felt a little pasted on. I think the movie would have been slightly more successful (to me) by eliminating Kristoff, so as to not lose its core focus on Anna and Elsa. Elsa's decision to be a hero or a villain, to face or run away from her fear, is the real core of the film. You'd still need to find a way to keep Sven. The prince for the princess should be optional (as it was in Moana); the animal companion is not. This isn't criticism, just a thought experiment. I have genuine criticism of the sequel, which I felt undercut the themes much more strongly.
- cooperadymas 6y ago
  While Kristoff and Anna do stay together, fall in love, and get engaged (spoiler alert Frozen 2!), the writers continue to play with the love at first sight trope with their relationship. His "act of true love" (as pointed out by Olaf) does not thaw her heart. It isn't true love, not yet. Only the love between the sisters is enough to heal her in the end. It goes a little deeper than that, but that's how I rationalize it at least :)
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Which is why I found it disappointing that the entire point of Frozen 2 was to separate the sisters, and undermine their love. It felt like the sequel missed a lot of what made the first one tick. I was a bit surprised to see several commenters in this thread saying they preferred it. I suspect that they're people who weren't moved by the first one, and found the backstory aspects of the second more interesting. But that's just a guess.

throwaway5752 6y ago

Agreed. They even animated him to noticeably look up at the chandelier before he pushes the crossbow away from Elsa (https://youtu.be/afnhCvicqdI?t=141 https://youtu.be/afnhCvicqdI?t=141), clearly intending to drop it on her and arrange the accident. They drop other hints. I mean, the whole "you can't fall in love with someone you just met" is a bit of self-referential subversiveness to more traditional Disney plots, and implies a separate motive. It's a bit subtle for kids, but I didn't think it was unsurprising.