Talk:Frozen 2

"story by" credits

The credits of the film say the story was written/conceived by the collaborative efforts of Jennifer Lee, Chris Buck, Marc Smith, Kristen Anderson-Lopez, and Robert Lopez. I see no reason why these credits should be removed. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Northuldra

I like this article very much. It presents a pretty accurate description of the plot and makes some nice references to true stories it might have been inspired by. In one of these analogies the author claims that the Northuldra have magical powers. However, in the movie, it is made explicit that the Northuldra have no special powers, but that they just take advantage of the (magical) forest's gifts. Emmiehil (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You can add that statement in respective place where it talks about. Fade258 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian culture

How is this sequence „Frozen's all-white characters were controversial; the sequel's characters are somewhat more diverse, but still stereotypical.[7]“ even allowed on Wikipedia. First of all, the term „all white“ is an Americanised phrase. In Scandinavia or more specific Norway (and over Europe) people are identifying themselves on nationality or cultural aspects. And of course the characters are all portrayed as ethnic Norwegians. The story is set in MEDIEVAL Norway. And until around 50 to 60 years ago there was no ethnical diversity in Norway, especially no ethnical diversity from non Scandinavian or non European countries. It’s ridiculous to think that a movie, which is set in medieval Norway HAS to portray diversity, even though there literally was no diversity during that time. That is rewriting history and also kind of disrespectful to Norwegian culture (claiming that ethnic Norwegians shouldn’t be portrayed in that numbers in a movie SET in Norway) Cell.83 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

First, the movie is not actually set in Norway.. it is a fictionalized country and society... inspired by Norway but not actually Norway... second the controversy was mentioned in reliable sources so it's inclusion is appropriate... we don't make value judgements we report on what sources say. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Blu-ray Special features

There is no Easter-based short film hosted by Olaf, a behind-the-scenes feature or child-friendly activities and contests. 86.130.26.236 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Typo Error

In the last part, Elsa touches Nokk and her icy powers transforms Nokk into ice with reins. There is also a calling to Elsa which leads Elsa to run off into the wind, leaving everyone in peace. The ppl who made this article forgot this part 175.156.80.174 (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Songwriters in the infobox

About the music parameter in the infobox, I'm thinking about using the {{efn}} template for the songwriters (in this case, it's Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez) to reduce some potential clutter while keeping Christophe Beck as the primary composer. Thoughts before I implement the template? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with adding it as a footnote. The primary creator of music in a musical is the songwriters, not the score composer as it would be for non-musical film. See my IAR justification at Talk:Frozen II/Archive 1#Music credit in infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2024

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 08:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Frozen II → Frozen 2 – Let me begin by establishing the fact that Frozen 2 is unequivocally the actual and official title of the film, per the official website, official trailer, social media, press releases, and press materials (do a Ctrl+F search for "Frozen 2", then do the same for "Frozen II"). Of course, the official name is not necessarily the COMMONNAME, so let's examine usage in reliable sources. Although "Frozen II" has gained some ground in recent years, ngrams show that "Frozen 2" still maintains a lead over "Frozen II". On Google Trends, the picture is even clearer: "Frozen 2" has an obvious and insurmountable lead. There are 7,270 scholarly results for "Frozen 2" on Google Scholar, and only 1,220 for "Frozen II". Likewise, Google News yields 48,100 results for "Frozen 2" and only 6,730 for "Frozen II" — that's an almost 90% drop! A survey of specific sources shows the same result. From the past two years: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. A sampling of reviews published when the film was released in 2019: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40].

Now that the COMMONNAME argument has been addressed, there are several other reasons "Frozen 2" is a more appropriate title than "Frozen II" even if "Frozen II" is the COMMONNAME, and especially if both are deemed equally common (in which case, the official name should naturally serve as tiebreaker). Firstly, "Frozen 2" is more recognizable to the general reader than "Frozen II". As seen with the Google Trends analysis, the natural instinct of readers is clearly to type "Frozen 2" into the search bar rather than "Frozen II", which is logical, considering Arabic numerals are more common in titles of works and beyond. The Frozen 2 redirect has received half as many lifetime views as the target page! When readers watch the film on Disney+, it's "Frozen 2". When they listen to the soundtrack on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple Music, it's "Frozen 2". The documentary is called Into the Unknown: Making Frozen 2; the podcast is called Inside Frozen 2. Now, let me play devil's advocate: perhaps the distinction between "2" and "II" is so minor that the impact on recognizability is negligible; if so, wouldn't it make sense to go with the actual title since there is no harm in doing so?

Secondly, as established earlier, Frozen II is not the actual title and is merely a stylistic device used in marketing materials. Per MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects and MOS:TMRULES, article titles should not normally emulate logo or marketing stylizations. For example, we use Fantastic Four (2015 film) and not Fant4stic; Mission: Impossible 2 and not M:I-2; and WALL-E and not WALL·E. This extends beyond film titles: see Lego (not LEGO), Eminem (not EMINƎM), Toys "R" Us (not Toys Я Us), Pink (singer) (not P!nk), AOL (not Aol.), etc. I acknowledge that the film's title card also uses "Frozen II", but there are many films whose onscreen title differs from its actual title: Dune (2021 film), Fast & Furious 6, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, Iron Man 3, etc. Thirdly, with a third and fourth film recently being announced, sources are already widely using "Frozen 3" and "Frozen 4": [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. (There are dozens more, but I don't want to spam this page any further.) Our draft pages are currently (and correctly) located at Draft:Frozen 3 and Draft:Frozen 4; we should be WP:CONSISTENT in our approach to dealing with these logo stylizations.

I recognize that this is a long read, but I am anticipating an uphill battle and felt it was important to demonstrate a strong rationale. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Roman numerals are not a stylization, and the title card says "Frozen II". O.N.R. ^(talk) 11:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if you read my rationale in full before !voting, because I already debunked both of these arguments above. It is a stylization because Disney consistently uses "Frozen 2" in running text and the Roman numeral only appears in the stylized logo. The title card, which is just the logo, is also not indicative of the actual name because many films have onscreen titles that differ from the actual title; I gave many examples above. Both of these points are discussed in the final paragraph. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move Mainly due to not wanting to rehash Talk:Frozen II/Archive 1#Requested move 18 November 2019 again which resulted in this article being moved from Frozen 2 to Frozen II in the first place. I have read all the discussions including the proposal for this move and personally prefer Frozen 2 as the article title but see little benefit now to move it after close to 5 years of being stable as Frozen II. The redirect basically tags the titles as synonyms, spoken name is identical with both spellings, both are appropriate for links in other articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  The benefit is that it is a more recognizable and natural search term for readers, it conforms with MOS:TITLE#Typographic effects and MOS:TMRULES, it aligns with the convention on film articles to use the proper title if possible, and it is WP:CONSISTENT with the two future sequels whose common name is emerging to be Frozen 3 and Frozen 4. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  That was all covered fairly extensively in the previous move discussion. Only new argument is naming convention for the film series itself and that may be more compelling. Redirect at Frozen 2 gets searchers to the correct article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support move now under further consideration and discussion. It has always been my preference for the article to be at Frozen 2, just wary about redoing old arguments. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support move. At the time, I opposed the previous move as a bad idea (and a poorly justified one), and I still feel that way. I support moving this article back to the correct title, Frozen 2. I commend User:InfiniteNexus for taking the time to marshal the ample evidence in support of the proposed move, in order to get this article back to the correct title where it belongs. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per exemplary nom Red Slash 19:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support, good nomination, clear and convincing arguments. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom. Nommed like a boss. Lewisguile (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Related titles include List of accolades received by Frozen II, Into the Unknown: Making Frozen II, Frozen II (soundtrack), and Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets. Dekimasuよ! 04:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Utter nonsense. It's Frozen II onscreen and on the poster and DVD/Blu-Ray packaging. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

List of films with a different title onscreen:

• Dune
• Fast & Furious 6
• Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery
• Iron Man 3
• Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials

List of films with a different title on the poster and DVD/Blu-ray packaging:

• Alien 3
• F9
• Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
• Mission: Impossible 2
• WALL-E

InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Using adding Info or not?

Hey just a question, even though Frozen II is Disney's 58th animated film, what's the point of removing that info on the lead article? I just wanna know why? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It would need a reliable source that explicitly states that. Also it is non-notable trivia so really doesn't belong in the article. Something being first, second or last might be notable, but 58th? Also a Wikipedia list article is not a reliable source for any information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I get it that Wikipedia needs to add a source on any website since it's not a reliable source, but how is it a non-notable trivia fact? Explain please. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

We generally don't add that sort of ordinal info to the lead of film articles from major film studios, Disney isn't special. Check most film articles. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the first Disney animated feature film and it is noted as such by most sources due to its importance. Pinocchio is second, but after that ordinal doesn't matter as much. Also the ordinals for Disney animated films are somewhat fuzzy based on what is counted. The article List of Disney animated films used to be numbered but that was removed as not being of defining importance. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Funny part, even if something was notable, why can't things be allowed on the lead? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" per WP:LEAD. It is judgement call as to what goes in the lead but less important details about a topic generally just get covered in the article body. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)