FANDOM


  • Dous anybody know what time period the movie Frozen toke place in? It used to seem to me like it was during the Renaissance period but other people say it was in the 1780s while others said it was in the 1840s.

      Loading editor
    • You're a little off.  The Renaissance was 1200-1500.  The creators of Frozen say that the setting of this film was based on 1840s Norway.

        Loading editor
    • Shark235235 wrote:
      You're a little off.  The Renaissance was 1200-1500.  The creators of Frozen say that the setting of this film was based on 1840s Norway.

      Thank you for sharing that.

        Loading editor
    • Tangled is set in the 1780s according to the Mother Gothel page. The user who wrote the information didn't write "possibly" in his/her trivia. That's why people think it takes place in 1780s BUT the user DID NOT cite any source, which can be questioned where did the user get the info he/she wrote. Since Rapunzel lives in the same timeline as Anna and Elsa, people will say it's from 1780s. Coming from what Shark235235 wrote, "The creators of Frozen say that the setting of this film was based on 1840s Norway.", 1840s has a source from the official people who made it, but it's only the decade that they based it from. Since it's based, there IS a possibility that it is indeed 1840s. I mean, since it's based, maybe something from the movie we didn't notice was a reference to something from the 1840s that was not existing yet during the 1780s, right?

        Loading editor
    • You just need to look at the fashion, and you can say its definately in the 1840s, with their high waistcoats and ascots on men. The fashion of the female characters was a little modernized, but that was probably just for purposes of relating with the characters, and making it feel natural to watch. 

      However, weaponary said otherwise, as conversed in this thread.

        Loading editor
    • According to the Tangled makers, it's 1780s

        Loading editor
    • I find that irrelevant. Frozen says 1840s, which is much more logical, and it would help Disney if they said the same, since it would reduce conflict with historians.

      The original Snow Queen story is set in 1845, so it would make sense for Frozen, being based on it, to be the same.

        Loading editor
    • That's not necessarily true. Frozen is loosely based on The Snow Queen, and they made it their own by giving it ginormous changes to the story. Thus, since they're the makers, they could do whatever they want. Look here for what the Tangled makers said. Because Rapunzel and Flynn made a cameo, and weren't in their 70's but were still young like in Tangled, Frozen is evidently based in the  1780s.

      Filmmakers make goofs when doing films set in the past, so of course there would be conflict with historians. Back then, people didn't wear such clothing as Flynn Rider did (looks quite modern compared to what i've seen in picture examples), and yet Tangled is set in the 1780s.

        Loading editor
    • I personally have never seen Tangled, but I still fail to see why its even relevant what it says.

      What then would you say about the sources that state 1840s? It seems that the sources contradict each other (!again). I would personally put my trust in the ones that say 1840s, since it looks like that was the time period Disney was trying to recreate.

        Loading editor
    • Smeagol630 wrote:
      I personally have never seen Tangled, but I still fail to see why its even relevant what it says.

      What then would you say about the sources that state 1840s? It seems that the sources contradict each other (!again). I would personally put my trust in the ones that say 1840s, since it looks like that was the time period Disney was trying to recreate.

      To tell you the truth I am with InspiredAndNatural on this topic.

        Loading editor
    • I noticed. You said so on the muskets thread

      This isn't an argument. I'm not going to go against canon, I'm simply saying that there's a contradiction in canon at the moment.

        Loading editor
    • Never mind. I wasn't able to find the article stating 1840s again. It seems that 1780s it is, whatever objections I may have.

      This is quite an issue. I don't think Disney would mess up that badly on fashion. Maybe they though that frock-coats and tricornes would be associated with pirates?

        Loading editor
    • I made an edit to Mother Gothel and Rapunzel. It is possible they didn't age, which explains their youthful appearance (I noted this in the edit to the trivia). And don't say 500 years because of the 1840 timeline of Frozen, because the Tangled makers said 400 (making the "500 years" edit false and especially untrue because they set Tangled in the 1780s).

        Loading editor
    • I just watched Tangled, and I noticed its a much bigger hairful of mess than Frozen. It was a great movie and all, but the biggest thing that bugged me, was the ornate cavalier/curiassier uniforms of the guards, along with the reneissance galleons second, and no firearms (again) third.

        Loading editor
    • Smeagol630 wrote:
      I just watched Tangled, and I noticed its a much bigger hairful of mess than Frozen. It was a great movie and all, but the biggest thing that bugged me, was the ornate cavalier/curiassier uniforms of the guards, along with the reneissance galleons second, and no firearms (again) third.

      You know I have never watched Tangled, but I have read about it a little, not bad but I've seen or should I say read better.

        Loading editor
    • I really liked it for its Disney aspects and story, but it wasn't exactly a Pirates of the Caribbean of historical accuracy. If it was set in the 1600s or so, it would make a bit more sense.

        Loading editor
    • In my writings, both Elsa and Violet Parr are part of a superhero team called "Alpha Team".

      The time discrepancy is explained by the fact that Elsa lives in a country called Ruritania, which is far behind modern civilization (similar to Marvel's Latveria).

        Loading editor
    • Cool, but that's a topic for somewhere else. We're currently still trying to figure out when Frozen itself took place.

      When do you think that the original Frozen story takes place?

        Loading editor
    • Easy: "once upon a time".

      There is NOT supposed to be a definitive answer to that question. "Frozen" takes place in "the time of fairy tales". Same with "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", "Cinderella", "Sleeping Beauty", "Beauty and the Beast", "The Little Mermaid" and "Tangled".

        Loading editor
    • So Disney shouldn't be telling everyone the timeline for their movies? Prince Phillip in Sleeping Beauty tells his father that they're living in the 14th century, and that's quite definitive. Plus these directors being interviewed with a timeline question.

        Loading editor
    • InspiredAndNatural has a definitive point. There are many films that are set in certain time periods by official sources.

      Even though its not a fairy-tale, PotC is most definately set in the 18th century, and it wouldn't make sense for it to be set in the 'time of fairy-tales'.

      Frozen is likewise. The story was written during a time period when certain thoughts and ideas of the time period influenced the author into writing the original story. It would only make sense if 'The Snow Queen' is set during the time it was written.

      Even the film puts it in the same historical era.

        Loading editor
    • Tangled was based in the 1780's and Frozen the 1840's.

        Loading editor
    • Personally, I agree with Anna Bjorgman of Arendelle, but Tangled and Frozen apparently have some kind of connection, making conflict between what Frozen says, and what Tangled says about Frozen.

        Loading editor
    • Well their are Frozen fans who say the setting is in the 1840s and Frozen fans who say it's in the 1780s. Well everyone the jury is still out.

        Loading editor
    • So, if this is the 19th century, why is EVERYTHING in Arendelle so medieval?

      Where are the gas lamps? The trains? The guns? The modern way of living (including a sort of democratic system)?

      If you watch "The Great Mouse Detective", you can easily tell that it takes place in the 19th century. If you watch "Frozen", the last thing you think of when you see the movie is the 19th century.

        Loading editor
    • Agustinaldo wrote:
      So, if this is the 19th century, why is EVERYTHING in Arendelle so medieval?

      Where are the gas lamps? The trains? The guns? The modern way of living (including a sort of democratic system)?

      If you watch "The Great Mouse Detective", you can easily tell that it takes plasce in the 19th century. If you watch "Frozen", the last thing you think of when you see the movie is the 19th century.

      Yeha I used to think Arendelle was in the middle ages too untile this whole debate started.

        Loading editor
    • Agustinaldo wrote: So, if this is the 19th century, why is EVERYTHING in Arendelle so medieval?

      Where are the gas lamps? The trains? The guns? The modern way of living (including a sort of democratic system)?

      If you watch "The Great Mouse Detective", you can easily tell that it takes plasce in the 19th century. If you watch "Frozen", the last thing you think of when you see the movie is the 19th century.

      Look, if you have a problem with it, just go ask the guys who did the movie, as they made clear it was in the 1840s. They even mentioned it in the artbook and specifically stated they used the 1840s as a model for the film. And I'm not sure gas lamps were even in Norway (which is the setting of the movie).

        Loading editor
    • The Stephenson Rocket was invented in 1829. Railways didn't become reliable until the 1840s, and they didn't become popular until the 1860s, and even that was still in mostly just in Great Britain. Arendelle has no reason to have a railway, since its most convenient transportation method would be by ship. Meanwhile, the ships are VERY early 19th century. You wouldn't see a barquentine in the middle ages. 

      Gas lamps could have been there. Guns should've (see this debate).

      Democratic system is an absurd thought. Just because that's what you're used to, doesn't mean that's how everybody does it. Norway is STILL currently a Constitutional Monarchy.

        Loading editor
    • Smeagol630 wrote: The Stephenson Rocket was invented in 1829. Railways didn't become reliable until the 1840s, and they didn't become popular until the 1860s, and even that was still in mostly just in Great Britain. Arendelle has no reason to have a railway, since its most convenient transportation method would be by ship. Meanwhile, the ships are VERY early 19th century. You wouldn't see a barquentine in the middle ages. 

      Gas lamps could have been there. Guns should've (see this debate).

      Democratic system is an absurd thought. Just because that's what you're used to, doesn't mean that's how everybody does it. Norway is STILL currently a Constitutional Monarchy.

      Yeah, most of Europe was still in a monarchy. Even France was just barely still a monarchy after the French Revolution ended up a dud. France doesn't even become a republic permanently until the late 1840s. And as noted, Norway's still a monarchy.

        Loading editor
    • So...

      ...does this mean Alice and Wendy Darling are Elsa's contemporaries?

        Loading editor
    • Actually, Wendy Darling would be late 19th, early 20th century (Don't forget, Peter Pan II took place during the Blitzkreg from World War II).

      But what it DOES mean is that Cinderella and Ariel, heck, Melody even, would most certainly be contemporaries for Elsa (we know Ariel was effectively responsible for the original book being written thanks to Metal Fish, and the book was written in 1835, and published in 1836, and since the TV series took place at least a year before the original film, that suggests Ariel was born in the 1810s.

        Loading editor
    • Maby they will confirm the time period in the sequle or maby not, let's wait and see. If we can't figuar it out are selfs.

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: Maby they will confirm the time period in the sequle or maby not, let's wait and see. If we can't figuar it out are selfs.

      No need to wait for a sequel, as the art book made clear it was the 1840s.

        Loading editor
    • With that in mind, wouldn't it be cool if the sequel had steampunk?

      I don't think we've seen steampunk in Disney in a long time.

        Loading editor
    • That would be quite cool, with the main problem of Frozen revolving around Arendelle's over-industrialization! I think that's a very good plot idea. Steam is really just evaporated water, while ice is quite the opposite state of matter (if you count plasma out). I personally quite fear over-industrialization, and (in my opinion) Frozen II would be a good way to get that danger into society's consciousness.

        Loading editor
    • Smeagol630 wrote:
      That would be quite cool, with the main problem of Frozen revolving around Arendelle's over-industrialization! I think that's a very good plot idea. Steam is really just evaporated water, while ice is quite the opposite state of matter (if you count plasma out). I personally quite fear over-industrialization, and (in my opinion) Frozen II would be a good way to get that danger into society's consciousness.

      How do you know Arendelle even has any industry?

        Loading editor
    • Well, I'm guessing it has money. Which is a good indication. And it doesn't need to presently have any kind of industry for this plot to happen. They might discover a layer of coal underneath some area in Arendelle, and all of a sudden...BOOM...coal industry.

        Loading editor
    • But matches and marshmallows are products of early 19th century according to Wikipedia. So frozen couldn't be in 1780, could it?

        Loading editor
    • InspiredAndNatural wrote: According to the Tangled makers, it's 1780s

      I know they said that, but there's some conflicting evidence, namely that the wardrobe would point more to an early-mid 19th century than late 18th century setting, and that's not getting into how The Little Mermaid was apparently already published (which was in 1836). Even the creators have made mistakes regarding their work from time to time. For example, Hideo Kojima mentioned in the commentary for Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater that the radio device in the waterfall cave of Tikhogornyj was used by EVA to get orders from the KGB, even though EVA admits she was never actually affiliated with the KGB at all, but a Chinese spy.

      Also, Jennifer Lee mentioned in a twitter post that Anna and Elsa's parents were going to a wedding when they were lost at sea, implying they were either headed towards Rapunzel and Eugene's wedding in what was at that time the Germanic Confederation or otherwise to Denmark to witness Ariel and Eric's wedding or even Eric and Vanessa/Ursula's wedding (as those are the only possible weddings that would necessitate their traveling by sea and thus getting lost there, and within the presumed timeframe of Frozen [The Little Mermaid franchise was implied in the TV series to take place in the 1830s].).

        Loading editor
    • I don't think that Disney should really mix frachises together beyond necessity. It tends to get very confusing, just as it has here.

        Loading editor
    • I just place it at a period in the between time like 1790s-1830s time frame to make it even. What date is all on how you want to interperate htat. 

        Loading editor
    • Smeagol630 wrote: I don't think that Disney should really mix frachises together beyond necessity. It tends to get very confusing, just as it has here.

      Yeah, and what's even worse is that, unlike the incident with Belle in Hunchback of Notre Dame, which took place at least three to four centuries prior to Beauty and the Beast, the creators clearly felt Rapunzel being there was canon.

      Since the art book confirmed it was 1840s, we have to rely on that.

        Loading editor
    • Lovefiction wrote:
      I just place it at a period in the between time like 1790s-1830s time frame to make it even. What date is all on how you want to interperate htat. 

      You know that may work out in this debate.

        Loading editor
    • Have you seen any debating? If you consider this a debate, you should really see how hot headed a real debate can get.

      All we've been doing here is comparing sources, and trying to figure out the time period. Currently we've settled with the 1840s.

      Lovefiction didn't work out this 'debate', however (said with no personal offence intended). Saying its 1790s-1830s, is like teaching history class by saying 'Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated sometime between 50 and 5 BC. Take your pick on the date and write it on the test'.

        Loading editor
    • But if Frozen took place in the 1840s then why did Repunzel and Flynn appear in Frozen when they lived in the 1780s?

        Loading editor
    • Wolf 91 wrote: But if Frozen took place in the 1840s then why did Repunzel and Flynn appear in Frozen when they lived in the 1780s?

      To be honest, some of the wardrobe suggested early to mid 19th century than late 18th century, so it's likely the directors made a mistake. After all, Kojima claimed EVA made contact with the KGB in one of Snake Eater's commentaries, yet EVA later made clear that she was never even among the KGB at all in the ending.

        Loading editor
    • Its pretty obvious that the creator goofed it up. Tangled is in an even bigger mess, though. All kinds of historical mix-ups all over the movie, even though its been confirmed its in the 1780s.

        Loading editor
    • Thus far, it seems like the sources claiming that Frozen is 1840s seems more reliable that Tangled, especially since you say that movie is all over the place in terms of history, and also that Disney has made mistakes like that before.

        Loading editor
    • Frozen is not all that bad. You can only really complain about weaponary and a few things that are missing. Fasion is fine, at least for the men, the women's being slightly modernized, but still Scandinavian. Overall, its historically acceptable. Tangled is a different story...

        Loading editor
    • Smeagol630 wrote:
      Frozen is not all that bad. You can only really complain about weaponary and a few things that are missing. Fasion is fine, at least for the men, the women's being slightly modernized, but still Scandinavian. Overall, its historically acceptable. Tangled is a different story...

      Lol I have to agree

        Loading editor
    • I wonder how many Frozen fans still belive that Frozen took place in the 1780s like Tangled.

        Loading editor
    • I never did lol. Tbh, I think Frozen is correct, and Tangled is the screwed up one XD

        Loading editor
    • Frozen: According to the book, it's set in the 1840s, so I'll go with it.

      Tangled: 1780s, according to creators, so it's canon too.

      Rapunzel cameo: It's a cameo. There are tons of cameos in Disney movies, but they are never canon. So I don't think Frozen and Tangled are taking place in the same period.

        Loading editor
    • DustAndShadows wrote: Frozen: According to the book, it's set in the 1840s, so I'll go with it.

      Tangled: 1780s, according to creators, so it's canon too.

      Rapunzel cameo: It's a cameo. There are tons of cameos in Disney movies, but they are never canon. So I don't think Frozen and Tangled are taking place in the same period.

      How many of those cameos are actually acknowledged in the actual artbook, though?

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DustAndShadows wrote: Frozen: According to the book, it's set in the 1840s, so I'll go with it.

      Tangled: 1780s, according to creators, so it's canon too.

      Rapunzel cameo: It's a cameo. There are tons of cameos in Disney movies, but they are never canon. So I don't think Frozen and Tangled are taking place in the same period.

      How many of those cameos are actually acknowledged in the actual artbook, though?

      Which one? Art of Tagled or Art of Frozen?

        Loading editor
    • DustAndShadows wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DustAndShadows wrote: Frozen: According to the book, it's set in the 1840s, so I'll go with it.

      Tangled: 1780s, according to creators, so it's canon too.

      Rapunzel cameo: It's a cameo. There are tons of cameos in Disney movies, but they are never canon. So I don't think Frozen and Tangled are taking place in the same period.

      How many of those cameos are actually acknowledged in the actual artbook, though?

      Which one? Art of Tagled or Art of Frozen?

      Art of Frozen.

        Loading editor
    • Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DustAndShadows wrote:

      Weedle McHairybug wrote:

      DustAndShadows wrote: Frozen: According to the book, it's set in the 1840s, so I'll go with it.

      Tangled: 1780s, according to creators, so it's canon too.

      Rapunzel cameo: It's a cameo. There are tons of cameos in Disney movies, but they are never canon. So I don't think Frozen and Tangled are taking place in the same period.

      How many of those cameos are actually acknowledged in the actual artbook, though?
      Which one? Art of Tagled or Art of Frozen?
      Art of Frozen.

      Well, Tangled came out before the Art of Frozen.

        Loading editor
    • Belle from Beauty and the Beast, The Magic Carpet from Aladdin and other Disney characters can be seen (though not clearly, but enough to see them) in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, so I'm starting to think also that cameos aren't canon. 

        Loading editor
    • InspiredAndNatural wrote: Belle from Beauty and the Beast, The Magic Carpet from Aladdin and other Disney characters can be seen (though not clearly, but enough to see them) in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, so I'm starting to think also that cameos aren't canon. 

      Maybe, but on the other hand, unlike Hunchback of Notre Dame, the Tangled references actually were acknowledged in the artbook, which indicated they did think their presence was canon.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+