Based on the constant criticisms and analyses you see around the Internet, you'd think our entire generation is hellbent on ruining our own childhoods. It seems like everyday there's a new fan theory or plot hole committed to undermining some of my favorite films as a kid, and Disney movies appear to get this treatment with overwhelming commitment.
As I would read through these supposed plot holes, I couldn't help but notice that they're not truly as problematic as people make them out to be. Sure, there are a few that hold a lot of water, but there are just as many that can be explained. So, that's exactly what I'm going to do.
Here are 6 supposed Disney plot holes that people really need to let go.
Why do the townspeople forgive Elsa so quickly?
Many people think the resolution at the end of Frozen comes too abruptly, mostly pointing to the fact that the villagers forgive Elsa's sending life-threatening ice spikes at them without a second thought.
Based on what we know about the Arendelle townsfolk, however, this isn't totally out of character. First off, they were desperate to have a bonafide Queen and were ecstatic when she was crowned. Secondly, when Elsa does lose control of her powers, there are only a few people who look truly scared. Surprisingly, most of the people just look confused or curious, wondering how she was accomplish turning the fountain to ice. In fact, the panic only really sets in when the Duke of Weselton starts fueling it.
So, yeah, they were definitely shocked, but Elsa's return brought with it renewed summertime and a Queen who could now control incredible powers. Who wouldn't welcome back a person like that with open arms?
2. The Lion King
Why didn't Scar just kill Simba when he had the chance?
I see this question all over the Internet, and it just really baffles me. Scar did try to kill Simba when he had the chance: by sending the hyenas after him. They lie to their boss when they fail.
Additionally, it's simply not Scar's style to get into a brute confrontation with someone (we see how well that works out for him at the end). He uses cunning to kill Mufasa, and he prefers not to get his paws dirty killing his nephew. Sure, he probably could have taken the young cub, but he had already had a plan and was sticking to it. This decision is in-line with his character and not really a plot hole.
3. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Why aren't the dwarves living large with all those riches they mine?
Some critical folks who are probably no fun at parties have pointed out that Happy, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Sneezy, Bashful, and Doc live a pretty low-key lifestyle despite raking in all those diamonds. But, there are a couple major problems with this assumption.
For starters, though we never see the dwarves' employer or taskmaster, real miners are rarely the people that get to take home the gems and make a profit from them. In the "Heigh Ho" sequence, we see the diligent workers chucking their plunder behind a locked door. Like many people in medieval times, they did the work, and someone else probably gets to rake in the dough.
Secondly, the dwarfs are living under a monarchy. They probably had to send their earnings to the palace to pledge their fealty and keep their land. Either way, it's reasonable to see them as workhorses, not gem moguls.
4. The Little Mermaid
Why was Ariel okay with seafood being served at dinner (and only panic when she sees Sebastian)?
Um, seriously? She lived underwater for her entire life. Everything she ate for her whole damn existence was probably seafood. Plus, she seemed to be the only merperson to really give a damn about the talking wildlife down there, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that the King of Atlantis and his court were dining on some succulent crab (sorry, Sebastian).
Even if the whole community were full of vegetarians—and, judging by The Little Mermaid TV show, it does seem that Ariel subsists on kelp—she was obsessed with human culture. She probably put together that these fishermen weren't kidnapping her friends for a play date and had already come to turns with the food chain.
Why would the army let Mulan's crippled father enlist when they almost kicked out Mulan for struggling through a training montage?
I'll put it this way: when has ancient wartime conscription ever been reasonable? This isn't a plot hole; it all comes down to the way Shang leads. He was an anomaly among the army's forces who genuinely cared (perhaps too much) how his soldiers reflected on him.
He wanted his dad to see him with the best possible troops, so it makes sense he would send the ragtag leftovers home. In fact, had he seen Fa Zhou trying to be swift as a coursing river, he almost certainly would have sent him packing too. Had it been another general, any dead weight could have just been sent to the front lines.
Why doesn't anyone take issue with the shoe plan, and why doesn't the glass slipper change back like everything else?
I'll start with the first question here because there's an easy answer. Someone does question the silly plan of testing out the shoe size of everyone in the kingdom, and the Prince's own father is well aware of its stupidity.
Grand Duke: But Sire, this slipper may fit any number of girls!
King: That's his problem. He's given his word, we'll hold him to it.
Next up, it's true that the glass slippers are the only thing that doesn't change back, but there could be a multitude of reasons for that. The most likely being that unlike all the royal accoutrements, the shoes were not temporary but given to Cinderella as a gift from the Fairy Godmother. Every spell has a trace, and these slippers represent the vestige of that magic. They are the closest embodiment of the Fairy's power, as evidenced by their constant sparkling that is exactly like the sparkling from her wand. Though she said she was just helping her out for the night, a true Fairy Godmother should be watching over her subjects forever, and that's why she leaves Cinderella the signature slipper.