Sings-With-Spirits

Getting the "Hi, User! Watcha doing?" badge, huh? ;)

Welcome to the Wikia!

Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 17:11, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one doing that. Please check the history logs of the relevant pages to find out who is.

After you've done that, please drop by and let me know who is doing it.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 16:57, June 19, 2014 (UTC)

Your right I got you mixed up with someone else, I apologise. It was Anubis1890.

Thank you.

Established? Where? Agreed by whom?

There is more evidence that she marries him than there is evidence that Snow White marries the Prince. My edits are as legal as yours or anyone else's.

They may not have actually married in the sequel, but:

A) They kiss at the end, implying a happily ever after

B) John Smith stays behind in England

C) Historically, Smith never returned to New England

D) Historically, she does marry Rolfe

Are you arguing that Pocahontas chooses to not marry Rolfe after he gives up a royal appointment to be with her? After that kiss? KNOWING that historically she does not see Smith again and does marry Rolfe?

What more evidence must there be? The Price wakes Snow White with a kiss and they head to the "castle in the sky"... no wedding either, but nobody argues that they don't marry. Why the double standard?

I could ask you to stop undoing my edits on that page. Why should I and not you?

I'm a freelance lawyer specializing in human resources corporate law.

First, we need to understand the meaning of "speculation"; this is in essence an opinion based on limited or no factual data. Wiki, as a general rule of thumb, and this wiki, in particular, prides itself on the validity of its information. Since "they did not age" is pure speculation based on the flimsiest of data, it does not belong in the wiki, even in the trivia section, which should include clearly observable points or points that are confirmed in one way or another.

In the particular case of Rapunzel; the entire premise of the film is that the magic of the sun flower resided in her hair; once the hair is cut, it loses its power and never grows again. We know this because the bit of hair cut by "mother" remained short and brown amongst her golden tresses.

When her hair is cut, it loses its power. Eugene either dies or lies at death's door, when one, single, solitary tear saves his life. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is an ability she can activate at will. In fact, following the tradition of Disney, it is more likely than not that this was the last remaining drop of sun flower magic that remained in her and that it was only though extraordinary circumstances that she was capable of saving Eugene's life. Once this is achieved, the magic is gone; that is the nature of its magic.

Now, even if we do assume that she did retain this power, we are still facing several points that require a massive amount of stretching in order to even get to the point where she AND Eugene are magically young sixty years later.

First is the actual date of both films; as pointed out, there are two conflicting sources regarding the date of Frozen; EVERYTHING we see on-screen points to a post-1812 date, but ONE source; an interview with one of the producers (not a director or a researcher) states that it is the 1780's. It would not be the first time someone who should know better is blowing hot air.

If that one source is taken out of the equation, we don't need to speculate on young-looking 80-year-olds.

Second; we don't know with certainty that the head seen onscreen was Rapunzel's. Yes, it looks A LOT like her, but it could easily be Rapunzel's daughter or granddaughter.

Third; IF she still has the power to de-age, what evidence do you have that she could do so with somebody else?

Fourth; Rapunzel has seen with her own eyes the effect of the flower on someone who is kept young by it; remember that she had no idea just how old "mother" was; would she risk herself or Eugene to a horrible death if she could not, for any reason, perform her magic?

The magic was not hers; it was the magic of the sun flower which resided in her. Left alone, the flower would last forever, but it was human folly that destroyed it; the king sacrificed the flower to save his daughter.

So, based on what has been explicitly stated and seen onscreen, I am absolutely convinced that Rapunzel did not in any way use magic to keep herself or anyone else young and healthy. There is not only no evidence that she did, but there is not even any hard evidence that she would even need to do so.

Ergo, it is unfounded speculation which does not belong in the wiki.

-Sarah

It wasn't a producer. It was a director who revealed the timeline. And about your reply, then that would mean that a few of the trivias on Hans is also speculation, because it uses "possible" when referring to him and the Mirror (from the original story). If it didn't belong in the wiki, the admins would remove it (since they do look at users' edits, especially the Frozen pages.).

Indeed; there are several facts which are speculation in that page. I actually added information to make it clear that it is indeed speculation that he is "based on the evil mirror of the original story" because the evidence does NOT support this, but that instead he is "based on the concept of mirrors, which played an important role in the original story", which IS supported by the observable evidence.

Admins have their plates full and just because they have not addressed an issue, it does not mean that they approve of it. The princess pages have some of the heaviest trivia content in any of the over 25 thousand pages on this wiki; much of it rampant speculation with absolutely no foundation in fact, ranging from wishful thinking to rampant shipping with non-Disney characters.

Did you notice that in the Hans trivia section one entry argued for the possibility of the name "Westerguard", while the other categorically stated that this was in fact his name? Both mention the same source, which when checked does NOT categorically confirm the name; ergo; the "possible" entry is correct, while the "categorical" one is speculation.

But let's not go off on tangents on other articles; what is being discussed here is the aging magic issue; as I stated, there is no hard evidence, for or against, Rapunzel retaining the magical ability to rejuvenate herself and/or others, OR that she would use that ability if she had it OR that there is an actual need to use it. Therefore, anything regarding this possibly/probably non-existent ability is pure, unfounded speculation.

Why not start a discussion on the possibility that she might still have power? Or find a way of proving the dates involved? Or a discussion on the ethics of using rejuvenation magic on a loved one when dependence and painful death could be the result? Once these topics are discussed, then you might actually have a point to make on the wiki, until then, it is just... speculation.

Hi, it's me again. I spoke to one of the two directors, Nathan Greno, on Facebook, and he said it depends on who I ask. He said others felt it was the last drop. Here's what I wrote and what he wrote me (his message is the red):

Hi, I'm Kristi. I would like to ask if Rapunzel's tear was the last drop of the flower's magic? Some fans think so, and I don't, because her healing ability was in her hair, and if it went down to her teardrop, I believe that it could be used from elsewhere inside her, just like it did for her hair and tear. Yet, they (at least one person, which makes me think there are other fans who believe that) find it impossible. So I'd like to know the answer from you.

To be completely honest, it depends on who you ask! I think that magic is still inside her, but other people on the crew felt the tear was the last drop. I'm not sure why the power would run out? If she would have kept her hair, I feel the power would have lasted her entire life. In other words, I agree with you!

I can screenshot the webpage if you think I made up the message above.

"I'm not sure why the power would run out?" - because it is explicitly stated in the film that the magic is in her hair and that when her hair is cut it ceases to grow.

"If she would have kept her hair, I feel the power would have lasted her entire life." - Here he is stating that the magic is in the hair. The power lasting her entire life is CONDITIONAL to her keeping the hair and does not address losing the hair. With this statement he is agreeing with me.

"In other words, I agree with you!" - I suspect he misunderstood your question. He does not take into account the loss of the hair.

Let me see if I can describe it a different way:

The flower possesses a magical energy that heals. When the flower was brewed into a tea, the magic of the flower passed on to Rapunzel, where it manifested through her hair. Think of this as a magic marker pen; the magic is the ink and the hair is the felt tip. So long as the felt tip is securely in place, the marker will write. If you remove the felt tip, the ink reservoir spills out, making a mess, but impossible to write with. If you stick the felt tip back in, it won't write, because the reservoir is dry... but if you squeeze out the entire marker before the ink dries up, you might be able to get enough ink to write one last word.

I know; the analogy is not perfect, but it demonstrates the idea quite clearly; the magic energy manifests through the hair; no hair, no magic, but since it manifests through the hair; there was still enough left in her to manifest through her tear.

Tear, singular.

If it helps, imagine that it was the ink left in the stub of the felt tip. After it is gone, it is gone. The reservoir is covered in ink, but it can't be squeezed out as "tears".

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 20:02, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

When people shed tears, they sometimes shed only one. I've done so. Rapunzel shed one tear because she loved Eugene. If someone else whom she loved also was dying, Pascal for example, he would also have been healed, and most likely by another tear.

Regarding your illustration, magic isn't like a pen. It's everlasting. I strongly believe it's still in her, because tears can't be cut, and it wasn't as if it found it's way into the tear, but as if it were already there. With the care she was given by Gothel, she most likely never cried (people cry when they're emotional and she would have had to be in an emotional state to heal whatever would be causing her to cry: pain (Flynn's cut hand, for example), someone's death (Flynn's)). Don't you think that if a young Rapunzel cried over something (a burned hand, for example) and was too overwhelmed to sing the song, the tear would've healed that wound?? What I'm getting at is that it was already in her tear as if it were in her entire being and was still in her.

Lett's discuss magical theory here; what you are referring to is the law of sympathetic memory; Rapunzel was touched by magic, so she is, indeed more apt to have an affinity for magic because it was already in her. In this she is altered forever.

HOWEVER, the specific healing energies of the Sun Flower, as explicitly described in the film, are limited; the same way that the flower itself died when its energy was infused into a tea for Rapunzel's mother, the energy requires a living receptacle in order to renew itself. In this specific case, the living receptacle is explicitly shown to be Rapunzel's hair and ONLY her hair; we can clearly see that it does not manifest either in her eyebrows or in her eyelashes. Without the hair to hold and renew the magic, the magic energy is gone. Enough remained that, under EXTREME duress, within a few minutes of the event, that she was able to manifest what little energy remained in her, most likely remaining in her shag; as this was a miraculous event (pretty much by definition), that little drop managed to do quite a bit of magic, but after its effect was completed, the miracle passed; it was over; no more active magic remained in her. (Add to this the True Love clause typical of Disney films and the case is cinched.)

Can she perform magic later?

Yes, quite likely; sympathetic memory means that she was "touched by magic"; if she finds a teacher, spellbook, fairy godmother or similar, she will likely have a greater affinity for magic than your average person. Add to this her supernatural abilities due to being a Disney Princess (i.e. animal communication/companionship, the ability to draw on the power of True Love, etc...) and her considerable intelligence, knowledge and practiced abilities, she would make a GREAT wizardess...

But this is all speculation and wishful thinking.

As it stands, there is NOTHING to indicate that: A) after she lost her hair she gained the ability to manifest healing abilities AT WILL through the power of her tears, B) she has used those powers on herself and/or Eugene to maintain their youth.

Would it be cool, sweet and wonderful if she had her powers? Yes. But that is what fanfic is for; there she can keep her powers, regrow her hair, go to Hogwarts and swap hairstyle tips with Leia Organa; none of this belongs in the baseline wiki article on the character.

"Hero" applies to both men and women. These days, real life women are referred to as heroes instead of heroines.

Word gender has never been very popular in English. It's even less popular in American English, so with most words with a masculine and feminine form it is perfectly okay to use the male form for both genders.

Think about it; a female firefighter saves a family on TV, is she a heroine or a hero when the news comes on? She is a hero.

A female US Marine receives a silver star for valor; is she referred to as a heroine? No. She is a hero.

Female deputy gives her life on the line of duty. Is she called a heroine? No. She is a hero.

Do you think the Chinese Emperor, or any of the gazillion people who bowed to her in the film if Mulan considers her a heroine? No, of course not; she is a hero.

Notice the definitions YOU bring; 1. "a mythological or legendary"... 2. "character in a literary or dramatic work..." (read the following carefully, because I have stated it before and you seem to ignore it) to US (in the real world), Fa Mulan is a heroine, but IN THE FILM, to all the other CHARACTERS in the film, she is NOT a literary, legendary or mythological person: she is a living, breathing, human being who has performed heroic acts.

Do you understand this point now?

Second: the line which we are discussing lists her occupation in the film, not our real-world perception of her.

Third, considering all these things and the perception of them, adding to the fact that "heroine" is homophonic with "heroin", while seemingly silly, is just the icing on the cake. An attempt to add a little humor to the whole issue, which apparently went over yours head. for that I apologize; I thought that the inherent silliness of the point would have made its jocularity obvious, but your fixation on the issue has proven me woefully wrong.

There. I have exposed my position and hopefully answered your questions. If you have further objections to listing Mulan's in-universe occupation as "Hero of China", please note them and I will gladly answer them tommorrow.

Have a pleasant evening,

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 01:59, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

First of all nothing has gone over my head and if it has seemed like I have ignored a point it is because I cannot write an essay in the summary section but I apologize for my mistake. 

Secondly, you are just as fixated on it as I am sweetie, as you feel the need to contiue to edit this topic. 

Now lets move on to the other stuff shall we?

You seem to be ignorant to the fact that I also cited "a woman admired and emulated for her achievements and qualities" and "the central female figure in an event or period." 

Now, I am not denying that hero can apply to a woman, but in my experience on this world people always taught me hero is typically for a man and heroine is typically for a woman but the hero can be interchangable. I'm not denying that, I give you that one because it is true. In fact if my knowledge is correct I said that at least twice. But at the end of the day it is still English.  Heroine is a word in the English dictionary just like hero is.  Just because one is used more than the other doesn't make the other incorrect.  Heroine is still an appropriate term to describe what she is.  That's the point you are not getting. Did you get it that time? We can go over it again, I can even draw pictures if it will help.

Third the 'icing on the cake' as you put it is that fact that heroine is a homophone with heroin.  To my response is, so what!? Homophones exist that doesn't mean they are viable ground to base an edit off of.  In context 'heroin' doesn't make any freaking sense. It is like saying the fisherman stabbed a wail.  It makes no sense, obviously they are talking about the mammal the whale and not a cry.  In context heronie is perfectly reasonable, Mulan's 'occupation' of heroine of China =/= the heroin of China.  They aren't boiling her down and shooting themselves up with her, It makes no sense.  Obviously, this is a difficult concept for you since you based your original edit on this very topic.   Apparently I am not the only one with things going over my head, but hey at least we are in the same boat.

If it interests you this problem no longer exists.  I have since removed "Hero/Heroine of China" from the character box.  It was under Occupation and Hero/heroine is not an occupation, it is an honorary title.  They are not employing her to save China on a daily basis.  She joined the army, saved China and became a hero/heroine and was rewarded.  That doesn't make it her occupation.  Hopefully we can at least agree on that one. 

So if you have anymore questions you know where to find me and I will gladly get back to you tomorrow. 

I have absolutely no problem removing the line from the article. I will be adding "Imperial agent" (which I had previously added before it was removed) because that is specifically what she is in Mulan II; the Emperor tasks her with a mission, ergo, she is an imperial agent.

Oh... and about "over the head"; you might want to read my post again to see where you failed to grasp the meaning; I keep bringing it up because YOU keep bringing it up, not the other way around.

--Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 12:49, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

I too have no problems with adding that to the article, though it brings a whole new topic of discussion that is more than likely beyond either of us. 

Lastly, before this conversation dies off I would like to point out that not once was I rude to you, before your first post on this thread.  All I cited was a flaw in your reasoning, which there is/was.  I suppose I could have been more delicate but I like to get to the point.  I have found that the less time you spend screwing around the more effective communication works.  So I didn't want to waste time.  Perdon me.  It wasn't until you came here and decided to take butthurt shots at me that I returned the favor.  I'm not asking for an apology, nor do I intend on giving one, and I'm not asking for you to like me or be my friend. All I want from here on out is that you and I can be cordial with each other and make effective edits.  That is alll.