Cinderella II is one of the films that I do not class as a sequel, as has been pointed out, it is merely three episodes of a cancelled TV series and in my opinion it is NOT a sequel and lives in the same shoebox as, Tarzan and Jane, Atlantis: Milo's Return, Stitch: The Movie, and Belle's Magical World.
Anyway I think the point that Wondy made is exactly how I feel about this film. It is no masterpiece, It never will be, it's a cheap bit of fluff to kill and hours time. It is certainly nowhere near as bad as some make it out to be. It is aimed at kids (which I agree 100% with Netty's comment about how having a film for multiple demographics not always necessary, and I would have said the same point myself I had got here first,a lhtough as usual Netty always puts it better than anyone else
.) and is nothing more than a bit of harmless entertainment.
Some people expect it to be equal to the original, which it is not. People need to lower their expectations.
People here seem to get up in arms about the fact that it is 3 seperate parts strung together, which as I have pointed out, makes me put it in that shoebox. It is NOT IMO a sequel, and actually i appreciate this "film" as it is not often that studios will release a TV show that didn't even make it to air.
Imagine something for a minute, if these three TV episodes were made back in 1950 to air on the Disneyland anthology program, but were never aired and everybody knew that they had been sitting on the shelf at the Disney studios for half a century, I bet half the people on the forum would be going nuts emailing Leonard Maltin to get them put on one of the Treasures DVDs. People nowadys seem to dismiss anything new from Disney, and complain because the animation and story of the sequels had dropped, yet as Netty pointed out, quality dropped back in the 60s too. But do you ever get a thread on this forum started up by someone outraged at the quality of the animation in "Aquamania" in comparison to "Goofy and Wilbur". People all to often look at the past with rose tinted glasses and see everything as perfect. It's like Fantasia the word "flop" is not strong enough to descrive this movie when it was first released, it was abhorred! Walt Disney every publically apologised for it, saying "everyone makes mistakes"
My point being that, as the films are new most are often quick to judge, in 50 years time we will have a greater retrospective on things and Cinderella 2 will not seem as bad. Who knows like Fantasia, Cinderella II could be the admiration of future generations of animators to come.
As Netty pointed out, Disney are in the world of business, and if they have something sat on a shelf (like the 3 Cindy episodes) that are going to do what they can to get their money back.
Also the fact that it is 3 episodes strung together annoys people from a plot point of view. How often do you hear complaints that "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" is an ambomination, because it is three seperate 25 minute segtions strung together. how many people love "The Sign of Zorro", "Davy Crockett and the River Pirates" or "Davy Crockett King of the Wild Frontier"? they were all Tv episodes strung into films, and now they are considered classics.
IN order to wind up this rant I would like to conclude by saying that my only beef with Cindy II, is the same as Netty's. the fact that it has a "II", which the others like "Stich: the Movie", "Atlantis: Milo's Return" etc don't have. As it does give the impression that it is a proper sequel.
I bet Disney a really kicking themselves they did that now that Cindy III is coming!
Disney has weird ideas. I remember that they wanted the bells of Notre Dame to talk to Quasimodo. That makes the gargoyles look good. 
