WTFAW: Disney Triple Feature, Vol. I

Because I have some deranged masochistic urge to cause a crippling migraine attack, we will cover a collection of fan theories today. However, I understand they’re not just random theories, but all share some common element. So, what is that element, Dave?

Dave: All four are from Disney movies.

…Is there a theory about Frozen?

Dave: Well..

Because I don’t want to do another article on Frozen for a while. If you bring me another theory about that movie before I’ve had time to recover from last time, I will start hitting you with a stick, and I don’t know when I will stop.

Dave: Oh… in that case, let’s make a triple feature. But they’re all really good! Prepare to have your mind blown!

I don’t think rupturing a blood vessel in my brain counts as ”blowing my mind”. But fine, let’s get this over with.

Dave: The first theory is that Jane from Tarzan is the grandaughter of Belle and Beast.

Alright. What are the arguments?

Dave: There is a resemblance between them, but also, Jane could understand Tarzan, who was quite animalistic, just like Belle understood Beast.

Is that all?

Dave: No, there’s also the fact that Jane owned a tea-set with a pot and cups that looks just like Mrs. Potts and Chip. One of the cup even has a crack in it! A family heirloom, perhaps?

OK. So let’s break this down. As for the supposed ”Family resemblance”, is there really that much of a resemblance? Yes, both Belle and Jane are white brunettes, so there are some similarities, but is it really enough to say ”Yes, these two are related”? I’m not so sure.

But then there’s the idea that ”Jane understood Tarzan, like Belle understood Beast”.

Maybe you and I were watching different movies, but Beast wasn’t animalistic in the sense that he was feral. He looked like a beast, but his mind was unaltered. He could speak, reason and argue. He wasn’t a wild animal she tamed. Belle understanding him wasn’t a matter of animal/human relationships. It was a matter of being able to speak.

Dave: But what about the tea-set?

Yes, about that. It looks a lot like the one in Beauty and the Beast, I agree. But there’s one very important detail you’re forgetting about that tea-set. Do you remember what happened to it?

Dave: Uhm…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t that tea-set TURN INTO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE?!

I pointed this out in my article about the movie! They didn’t merge with stuff in the castle, they BECAME stuff from the castle!

In other words, the tea-set from Beauty and the Beast effectively CEASED TO FUCKING EXIST once the curse was broken!

Which means this is a different tea-set, and its appearance doesn’t prove a fucking thing!

So really, there is no evidence to back this theory up. The most you can say is ”they both wear yellow at some point”.

Next theory.

Dave: Ok, so sticking with Beauty and the Beast, you know that book Belle calls her favourite?

Yes…?

Dave: Belle is reading the story of Aladdin! Think about it. ”Far off places, daring sword fights, magic spells, a prince in disguise”! It’s all there!

Ah, ok. I can see a few flaws with that. First of all, ”Far off places”? Agrabah is far way from France, but considering the stereotypical opening of fairytales is ”Once upon a time, in a far away land”, I don’t think that really says much.

”Daring sword fights”? True, Aladdin stabbed Jafar with a sword, and swords appeared here and there… but actual swordfighting? Not really. Certainly not enough to warrant a special mention. As for ”Magic spells”, sure. But again, it’s not like that’s unique to Aladdin. Hell, it’s not unique to Disney! And then there’s ”A prince in disguise”.

Let me ask you this. What fucking movie were you watching?! Aladdin wasn’t a prince! That was the whole point of him wishing for it! That giant parade existed solely to make people THINK HE WAS A PRINCE!

That’s a PAUPER in disguise, not a prince! You got it completely fucking backwards!

And finally, ignoring all of these points, she takes that book with her and reads as she walks through town. At one point, she sits down by a fountain, and we see the inside of the book, with illustrations.

Does this look like Agrabah to you?

Sure, you could argue it’s a westernized depiction, but the scene she describes? That doesn’t happen! In fact, the complete OPPOSITE happens, with Aladdin meeting Jasmine, not knowing she’s a princess!

All of this is also ignoring that Aladdin came out AFTER Beauty and the Beast, which sinks this whole theory anyway. Can I go nurse my headache now?

Dave: I still have one more theory.

Oh goody…

Dave: Mother Gothel and the Queen from Snow White are the same person!

Excuse me… I must have missed that. We’re talking about the same people here, right? Mother Gothel, the villain from Tangled?

Dave: Yes.

And the evil queen from Snow White? Tall, grim, flowing cape, talks to a mirror?

Dave: That’s the one.

And they are the same person? Not sisters? Not just similar? The actual same person?

Dave: Exactly.

Wow…

Dave: Yeah, isn’t it cool?

No, it’s among the dumbest theories I’ve ever heard. What I find strange is that, instead of the migraine I expected, I suddenly started tasting copper, and everything went bright red for a split second.

So what are the arguments?

Dave: Well, they look similar, they both have daggers in boxes, and they’re obsessed with youth and beauty.

I see we’re ignoring the big issue for now. Well, then. You say they look similar? In what way? What is so similar looking about them? They both have black hair and thin eyebrows? They also have different coloured eyes. Gothel has blue eyes, the Queen has green.

Dave: Uhm… but when they turn into hags, they look a lot alike!

You’re still ignoring the eye colour, Dave. But I’ll play. Let’s see, shall we?

Wow. Like peas in a fucking pod, aren’t they?

And you’re also missing the fact that with Gothel, that is how she actually looks. With the Queen, it’s a disguise.

Not to mention, their personalities are absolutely nothing alike, with the Queen being dominering, regal and cold and Gothel being manipulative and feigning affection. Both are vain, but Gothel is motivated by greed, wanting eternal youth. The Queen is motivated by jealousy, not wanting anyone to be more beautiful than her.

And ignoring the fact that Gothel kept a dagger in a drawer, not a box, the Queen has a dagger in a box? When does she ever have a dagger in a box? The only knife seen in the movie is the one carried by the huntsman. As in, his own hunting knife!

Dave: There’s another! It’s in the box she gives to the huntsman.

That box? You mean the box she explicitly told him to put the HEART in?! The one that had a dagger ON the lock, not INSIDE THE BOX?!

Dave: Well.. that dagger looks a bit like Gothels dagger…

Firstly, so what?! And secondly, no, it fucking doesn’t! It looks nothing like it! Gothels dagger was ornate, with a swirled handle and a curved handguard, and the dagger on the box was more simplistic, with a straight handguard!

Dave:… why do you know that..?

Because unlike you, I pay fucking attention!

Speaking of, there’s that small nagging issue… what was it… Oh right.

How do you explain that both these characters, who according to your theory are one and the same, both end up kind of sort of ever so slightly EXTREMELY FUCKING DEAD!?

Dave: Well, we never see the Queens body…

True, but you know what the thing is with the Queen? Her death is one of the most excessive of any Disney villain!

She’s trying to roll a boulder down on the dwarves, using a stick as a lever. Then a bolt of lightning strikes the stick she’s holding. That’s about 30,000 amperes going through your body. If that doesn’t kill you, (which, considering 0.2 ampere is lethal, is very likely) it’ll hurt like everliving hell. Then the rock she stands on crumbles, and she falls down the cliff.

Given that her scream lasted about six seconds before fading out (rather than abruptly stopping) I’d say we’re looking at a more than 180 m drop. In simple terms, she’s dead on impact.

And then the boulder she was going to use to crush the dwarves falls down after her!

The point I’m trying to make is that it’s probably best we don’t see her body, because she didn’t just die. She got overkilled to death.

Gothel, meanwhile, aged what is probably a few centuries in a couple of minutes, to the point where there’s nothing left of her but dust. These are observable as separate events, meaning they cannot be the same person.

In other words, this theory, which is so stupid I fear I have actually become dumber for having dissected it, is as dead as the two old bats it concerns. And I swear, Dave, that if you bring me any more fan theories today, what I will do to you will make the ordeal the Queen suffered seem like the Elysian fucking fields by comparison.

Back to Main Page

WTFAW: Frozen

Ok, for those of you who aren’t familiar with this theory, the idea is that Elsa’s and Anna’s parents didn’t actually die in the shipwreck, and in fact the shipwreck itself is the opening to Tarzan. They abandoned ship, washed ashore on an island, had a child and lived in a tree house before being killed by Shere Khan’s bitchy cousin.

It’s a neat little theory, which is actually part of a bigger theory from fans to tie together all Disney movies into one central time-line. Elsa’s and Anna’s parents were on their way to Rapunzel’s wedding, when they got caught in the storm that sank their ship.

So, how is the theory complete and utter bullshit? Let me count the ways, Ladies and Gentlemen.

First of all, I would like you to take a look at the couple in this picture.

Let’s call this “Exhibit A”

Now, compare them to the couple in this picture.

Which probably makes this “Exhibit B”

Notice any differences? Such as how Tarzan’s dad has a massive mutton-stache? Or how the mother has shoulder-length hair?

Dave: Sea travel takes a long time. Growing your hair out doesn’t take long. He could have grown a handlebar moustache and she could’ve grown her hair out.

I’m sorry, Dave, but that doesn’t add up for several reasons. After all, the theory is that they were on their way to a wedding. You mean to tell me the very orderly and neat King of Arendelle didn’t bring a barber with him to a WEDDING or, if he did, randomly decided to grow a huge mutton-stache and the Queen, in a similar burst of spontaneity decided to grow her hair out?

Seems a bit far fetched, if you ask me.

Dave: Well, it’s still plausible!

But growing out a mutton-stache takes what? Three weeks? A month? Two? I admit, I’ve never tried growing out a mutton-stache, but I can assure you growing the voluminous, well maintained ‘stache Tarzan’s dad is rocking takes longer than two weeks.

And they can’t have been away for MORE than two weeks, since Anna told them “See you in two weeks” before they left! In the time it takes to grow a mutton-stache, THEY WOULD’VE COME HOME!

Oh, and before Dave chimes up again, I’d like point out how, according to his theory, the King and Queen miraculously went from blonde and brown haired to dark brown and ginger, respectively!

It’s magical! Almost like they were completely different people or something!

Also, observe their clothing. Notice the regal, fancy and Sami-inspired clothing the royal couple is wearing, compared to the noticeably more simplistic, VICTORIAN clothing of Tarzan’s parents.

Dave: So the idea of changing clothing is unheard of to you?

No, but changing into clothes from a completely different time period for no good reason strikes me as a bit odd.

Now, I’d like you all to observe the following picture.

You may recognize this as the royal couple boarding the ship taking them on their ill fated journey.

Please note the size of the ship

Now, I’d like you to take a look at this picture, in which we see Tarzan’s parents leaving the sinking ship, to set up a new (albeit short lived) home in the jungle.

Again, notice the ship size?

Isn’t it amazing, Dave, how the ship managed to not only sink, come back up and CATCH FIRE, but also grow from a brig to a man-of-war?

Dave: Disney magic…?

Shut up, Dave.

I could probably end this here… But I won’t.

Instead, I’d like to present what I’d like to call the “Trump card”. This is a detail many seem very happy to ignore, since it pretty much sticks a dagger in the whole theory.

If you observe the second and third picture, you may notice something. Something that is missing from one picture, but present in the other.

Look closely. REALLY CLOSELY! Can you see it yet?

Here, let me circle it for you, if you still can’t see it.

   THE FUCKING BABY!

Again! This trip was supposed to take two weeks! And yet, by the time they sank, they already had a fucking kid! Explain that, Dave!

Dave: Uhm…we don’t know how long pregnancy take in the world of Disney. Maybe it t-

No, Dave.

Dave: well, maybe they were thrown off course for nine months. That would-

They had a photo of themselves, from before the trip took place, where they had the kid.

Dave: Maybe they fell into a time vortex which threw them into a parallel universe where they merged with their alternate selves that look differently, who were working class in London rather than Scandinavian nobility and had a boy instead of two girls….

Do you really need me to explain in how many ways that theory is stupid?

Dave:…. not really, no….

Thought not…

Now, here’s my theory. It’s a bit unorthodox, but I’ll talk you through it.

Frozen and Tarzan has absolutely nothing to do with one another. The only thing they have in common is that they both feature a shipwreck, and even then, they have a lot of differences.

You see, this whole theory spawned from a joke by one of the people who made Frozen. A joke, as in “not to be taken seriously” and sure as hell not to be considered canon. I know some fans just love the idea of all of Disney taking place in one continuity. I’ve no problem with those kinds of theories… All I ask is that they add up.

But this one simply doesn’t. And if you still believe it does, I think it’s time that you, if you pardon the expression….Let It Go.

Back to Main Page