Connected Disneyverse
Mar 2, 2016 19:03:25 GMT -5
Post by Elsa on Mar 2, 2016 19:03:25 GMT -5
I'm all for connecting movies. I'm one of the nerds who looks at a picture of Princess Mia stomping on Prince Nicholas' foot, and I think to myself, "Catwoman stomps on Captain Kirk's foot while Gimli and Mary Poppins watch". It's how I connected movies when I was younger. My dad was watching the Matrix, and I got excited because "Elrond" was on the screen, and I decided I wanted to watch it, until my dad told me "Elrond" was evil. I was very confused.
I digress.
I posted this because I saw a picture on my facebook feed about Tangled, Frozen, the Little Mermaid, and Tarzan.
This theory drives me crazy.
I totally agree that Anna and Elsa's parents were en route to Rapunzel's wedding. And Rapunzel and Eugene making an appearance in Frozen just makes it fit perfectly that they take place around the same time. I love the idea that the ship Ariel is exploring at the beginning of the Little Mermaid is the ship Anna and Elsa's parents had been on before the storm. What I don't agree with, is the Tarzan aspect of this. The theory claims that Anna and Elsa's parents survive the shipwreck and wind up on an island, and there they have a baby boy, until they are tragically killed shortly after by a leopard. This doesn't make any sense, and I've already argued with multiple people over this. My mother, the friend who posted it on facebook, blah blah blah.
Anyway. I guess the real reason I'm posting this on here, in the Disney Debate section, is because I'm wondering if anyone does agree with the Tarzan part of the theory. Or if anyone disagrees with some other part.
I know Chris Buck directed both Frozen and Tarzan, and he admits that he likes to think they are connected, in his head. But the way he says it, Tarzan doesn't take place in the generic jungles of Africa, but on an island. And then he added that on the other side of the island are surfing penguins, as in, Surf's Up which is another movie he directed, but it's not Disney.
Lyle adds the following. Some of which is slightly repeated (he took it to a whole new level to mind-boggle my friend on FB)
I digress.
I posted this because I saw a picture on my facebook feed about Tangled, Frozen, the Little Mermaid, and Tarzan.
This theory drives me crazy.
I totally agree that Anna and Elsa's parents were en route to Rapunzel's wedding. And Rapunzel and Eugene making an appearance in Frozen just makes it fit perfectly that they take place around the same time. I love the idea that the ship Ariel is exploring at the beginning of the Little Mermaid is the ship Anna and Elsa's parents had been on before the storm. What I don't agree with, is the Tarzan aspect of this. The theory claims that Anna and Elsa's parents survive the shipwreck and wind up on an island, and there they have a baby boy, until they are tragically killed shortly after by a leopard. This doesn't make any sense, and I've already argued with multiple people over this. My mother, the friend who posted it on facebook, blah blah blah.
Anyway. I guess the real reason I'm posting this on here, in the Disney Debate section, is because I'm wondering if anyone does agree with the Tarzan part of the theory. Or if anyone disagrees with some other part.
I know Chris Buck directed both Frozen and Tarzan, and he admits that he likes to think they are connected, in his head. But the way he says it, Tarzan doesn't take place in the generic jungles of Africa, but on an island. And then he added that on the other side of the island are surfing penguins, as in, Surf's Up which is another movie he directed, but it's not Disney.
Lyle adds the following. Some of which is slightly repeated (he took it to a whole new level to mind-boggle my friend on FB)
Ok, first off, let's start with that ridiculous map that Sage showed me. Tarzan's landing is in what is and would have been the bloody Western Sahara Desert, so there's no way that that would possibly be a plausible landing point for the entire storyline of Tarzan. At the very least, the would have to land more than a hundred miles further south in modern-day Guinea (where the movie artists actually went to study the gorillas for the animation) or on the other side of the Cape of Good Hope in what would be modern-day Mozambique.
Secondly, history. Frozen and Tangled occur in the mid-1500's. Tarzan takes place in the early 1900's. Historically speaking, Tarzan's parents were British citizens en route to a British settlement in either India or Siam. So, unless the parents in Frozen pulled an Avatar and were frozen in ice for hundreds of years and then magically became British, the whole thing right there is a no go.
Main points for why Tarzan is several hundred years later- one: the photo of his parents and the glass frame date the film from the late-1800's and early 1900's. The sepia print specifically would date it to at the earliest, the mid-1700's, giving us at least 200 years of difference. Also, the glass in the frame would not have been able to have been produced as a common keepsake until the early 1800's as a part of the industrial revolution.
Main point two: The ship on which Jane arrives is a ship of steam, which at its earliest date would have been the early 1870's by its design. Frozen and Tangled are clearly a part of the age of sail, with the majority of their ships looking to be typical of the late 1500's. The first steamship didn't set sail until 1821, and even then steamship travel wasn't considered safe or available to the public for travel across the seas until 1839 with the invention of the screw propeller.
Main point three: Clayton's shotgun, Jane's dress and Tazan's suit. Clayton's shotgun, with it's premeasured shot and casings wouldn't have been practical nor invented until the mid-1800's. Also, Jane's wardrobe and the suit that belonged to Tarzan's father are unique to the industrial period of upper-class citizens in England and France, also relatable to the 1800's.
Main point four: The movie's description itself states that the film of Tarzan takes place in the mid-1880's, meaning that Tarzan's parents at best, left Europe in the early to mid-1860's. So, again, we have three hundred years of history that all basically say, no, this theory is false.
Secondly, history. Frozen and Tangled occur in the mid-1500's. Tarzan takes place in the early 1900's. Historically speaking, Tarzan's parents were British citizens en route to a British settlement in either India or Siam. So, unless the parents in Frozen pulled an Avatar and were frozen in ice for hundreds of years and then magically became British, the whole thing right there is a no go.
Main points for why Tarzan is several hundred years later- one: the photo of his parents and the glass frame date the film from the late-1800's and early 1900's. The sepia print specifically would date it to at the earliest, the mid-1700's, giving us at least 200 years of difference. Also, the glass in the frame would not have been able to have been produced as a common keepsake until the early 1800's as a part of the industrial revolution.
Main point two: The ship on which Jane arrives is a ship of steam, which at its earliest date would have been the early 1870's by its design. Frozen and Tangled are clearly a part of the age of sail, with the majority of their ships looking to be typical of the late 1500's. The first steamship didn't set sail until 1821, and even then steamship travel wasn't considered safe or available to the public for travel across the seas until 1839 with the invention of the screw propeller.
Main point three: Clayton's shotgun, Jane's dress and Tazan's suit. Clayton's shotgun, with it's premeasured shot and casings wouldn't have been practical nor invented until the mid-1800's. Also, Jane's wardrobe and the suit that belonged to Tarzan's father are unique to the industrial period of upper-class citizens in England and France, also relatable to the 1800's.
Main point four: The movie's description itself states that the film of Tarzan takes place in the mid-1880's, meaning that Tarzan's parents at best, left Europe in the early to mid-1860's. So, again, we have three hundred years of history that all basically say, no, this theory is false.