cinderella 3 better than original

[REINIER]

I find it hard to say, but every time i watch Cinderella 1 (granted that is not a lot) i find myself having difficulty watching it till the end.
Whenever The Evil Stepmother isn't around i simply loose interest.
For me she is the glue holding that movie together.
Main reason though has to be storywise: i simply feel
(and i'm no hc andersen or grimm for that matter , so bare with me )
that this perticular movie should have received much more attention.
It's animation is in my opinion in no way refreshing, that may be due to budget but i still feel that the character animation could be better.

It's sequel Cinderella 2 Dreams Come True should be ritually sacrificed, burnt and then burnt some more!!!

Cinderella 3 was the first out of three that had some decent story to it.
I know that is mostly due to it's predecessor ( and by that i mean cinderella1) but still it was interesting to see what one could derive out of such a slim story.

I know that by now i probably offended many of you but still i would like a response

[PeterPanfan]

Did you just say that Cinderella should receive much more attention?

How much more attention could it get?!

[kurtadisneyite]

Cinderella 1 was a __ huge__ hit in its day, saving the Disney Studio from bankruptcy. Its aprox $2.2 mil budget was modest compared to many other Disney features. Cindy 1 was the first Disney feature to have all humans filmed in Live Action before major animation began, and to have multitracked singing.
Unfortunately, Cindy 1's soundtrack voice quality is pretty abysmal by todays standards, and the restoration severely altered a number of color values.

Cinderella 2 was a collage of episodes from a failed TV series effort. It looks cheap because it was - only $5 mil, and several studios working on it further eroded consistency (only the last episode "feels" somewhat like the original). However, It also was a huge success in its DVD marketplace.

Cinderella 3 was the last feature done by Disney Australia. Though also low budgeted at $6 mil, it benefited from the Aussies deciding, as it was their last feature, to throw everything they had at it. Even though the studio was being closed around them, the crew managed to pull off a solid effort. Also, its color accuracy of the original Disney design for Cinderella 1 surpasses that of the restored C 1 film !

Wrt Cinderella 1 .vs. Cinderella 3 characters;

In 3, Cinderella was updated to be a better fit for 2006's audiences, becoming more proactive and driven (note her metamorphosis to action heroine during the pumpkin ride) . I don't remember name of Cindy 3's lead animator, but he worked hard to create new model sheets for the girl, and in some shots she's drawn stunningly well (unfortunately, there are shots where she's looking pretty bad). Cindy 3 also had a fair bit of live action reference shot. Those references, by the way, came in handy when Philo Barnhart did the excellent artwork for the CINDERELLA III book. Jennifer Hale, a versatile actor doing a number of Disney Princesses voice, comes close to equaling Ilene Woods excellent performance (unlike Ilene, Jennifer didn't sing songs - Tammy Taplin, I believe, did those).

The Stepmom / Lady Tremaine, primarily animated by Lily Hofstedt, was a fusion of Maleficent and the older Lady Tremain done by Frank Thomas.
While Frank was forced to reference live action (and complained it "nailed his feet to the floor"), Lily, though having live action references, relied more on instinctual and "from the heart" animation. Add Susan Blakeslee's excellent voicework (she's been doing Lady Tremaine for a number of other Disney Cinderella games, etc.), and you get what most critics felt was the star of Cinderella III, Lady Tremaine.

It's unknown whether this title will make the jump to HD TV!

[Disney Duster]

Cindy 3 also had a fair bit of live action reference shot. Those references, by the way, came in handy when Philo Barnhart did the excellent artwork for the CINDERELLA III book.

Woah, I have 2 Cinderella III books, the picturebook and coloring book. Only the picturebook has a credited illustrator, and that is Melissa Arps. Is Philo Barnhart the one who did that big Cinderella III book that I still have yet to see anywhere?! The only other thing I could think of is the Cinderella III Cine-Manga by Tokyopop I plan to buy someday.

But once again thanks for the info, and maybe someday we'll get an HDTV boxset of all the Cinderellas, since that would only make sense to include all the movies together.

[Escapay]

But once again thanks for the info, and maybe someday we'll get an HDTV boxset of all the Cinderellas, since that would only make sense to include all the movies together.

*imagines Cindy2 in high definition*

*promptly faints*

*then imagines Cindy3 and the pumpkin ride in high definition*

*promptly is revived*

I still need to get Cindy3 on DVD. Note to self, stop picking up "Doctor Who" DVDs.

Scaps

[2099net]

I only saw Cinderella III a few weeks ago, having been sitting on my DVD for a long time (I needed a boost to reach the table - just kidding), and I'm mystified by all the praise to be honest.

I am not a sequel basher (except for Hunchback II which deserves everything it gets) and I don't consider "movies" like Milo's Return, Belle's Enchanted Tales or Cinderella II as "movies" so I don't consider these as sequels either.

However, while I have mixed opinions on sequels (from "Better than the original" with Return to Never Land to "Okay" with Patch's London Adventure/Lady and the Tramp II to "Oh dear" with the Aladdin sequels), Cinderella III can be described as less than average at best.

It's just not a sequel. Too many characters and situations have changed. I've heard people complain about Tramp in Lady and the Tramp II, and even Hook and Peter Pan in Return to Never Land, but never has a Disney sequel reinvented so much at one time, and had so many characters "out of character". It doesn't matter if the animation is on-model or off-model if all the characters are.

I know many defend this because, to be honest, Cinderella needed more character and personality (I think we can all agree this) and indeed one of the more obvious failings of the "its not as bad as everyone says" Cinderella II was that Cindy was still basically a non-entitiy in her own "movie". But I would counter that with "Is a sequel really justified if so much has to be changed?"

[slave2moonlight]

Well, I still say that developing an underdeveloped character a bit more or revealing another side of them is not the same as changing them. The events of Cinderella three made things a bit tougher on her, and she rose to the occasion. She still seemed like the same Cinderella to me, just pushed too far, ha.

It's funny how opinions differ about the sequels too. For me, Bambi 2 is at the top of the heap and even Disney theatrical quality, with Cinderella 3 close behind but with a few flaws that make it understandably direct-to video (but exceptional for direct-to-video). Then 101 Dalmatians 2, followed by Lion King 2 and Extremely Goofy Movie. All those I consider pretty darn good and I wouldn't have any problems with Disney direct-to-video if they were at least as good as all those. With Aladdin, I felt King of Thieves was good but could have been better, and Return of Jafar was among the worst stuff from direct to video Disney. The really worst was probably Hunchback 2. I haven't seen some of the more recent ones though, and I too don't consider the TV show compilation ones as true "movies." Cinderella 2 should never have been touted as a "movie" or "sequel." It shouldn't have even had that title. I still call it "Mouse Mouse Tales." With that title, I think it's a cute movie for kids. I don't see the problem with new stories about Disney characters aimed at kids, but I expect quality if they're promoted as sequels and all-new features. That's when I get rubbed the wrong way. In the case of Lady and the Tramp 2, that's a case of someone making some very bad decisions. It wasn't a bad idea, and I always loved Scamp from the comics, but it really shouldn't have been a musical for starters. That was the biggest flaw and it was a huge one. Much of the voice acting (besides Tramp) was pretty awful as well. And there's a character (Tramp) that changed a bit TOO much from his original incarnation all too quickly. You'd think it took place 10 years later, and that wouldn't even be the case in dog years.

Anyway, as for the main question, I can see how some folks would prefer Cindy 3 to the original. For me, the original is a masterpiece and part 3 is just a great movie. I have no problem with that though. A great movie is a pretty good thing to be. For me, Cindy is the glue that holds the original together, not that I feel it doesn't hold well. She's one of the most gorgeous and charming females to ever grace the silver screen, and she's not even my favorite Disney girl, ha. However, when I watch Cindy 3, I sometimes wonder if she doesn't tie with my faves (Tink and Ariel). They did an amazing job making her just as gorgeous as in the original most of the time, and the story is really entertaining and exciting. That's probably the main reason it is preferred by some, of course, but I love the classic look and feel, and sound, of the original. Perhaps 3 is better for back to back viewings, but that doesn't mean it's a better overall film really. I think its weakest points are the sugary sweet opening, especially when Cinderella talks to the camera. I almost feel like they might have done the opening before they knew it would be their last film over in Australia, ha. The opening, though Cindy looks great talking to the camera, is the only place I can think of offhand where it does feel like a direct to video sequel. Oh, yeah, and any other time they try to do the Broadway break out into song thing, and those are the main flaws of that film. Besides that are only some minor puzzlers about how the wand works and things like that. And, yeah, Anastasia doesn't seem exactly the same as she was in the original. I'm also not thrilled that they didn't put things back to normal in the end of the film. I suppose they felt that would make the movie seem pointless, but I would have to disagree. In fact, it might even make it a bit more interesting. As it turned out, I find myself wondering what the park characters are told is true canon with Cinderella now and what is not. Another funny thing is, Cinderella 3 and Cinderella 2 have some inconsistencies between them, as I recall. Still, overall, Cinderella 3 is a great movie in and of itself. The flaws really aren't as bad as they look when written out. As you watch the film, it's just too engaging to not enjoy and the characters have so much more of their "character" revealed to us.

[Atlantica]

Disney Duster, will we ever get your detailed review of 'Cinderella', as I seem to remember you said we would be getting it in the Summer? I was really looking forward to it!

[Disney Duster]

Oh wow, thank you atlanticaunderthesea! Oh happiness...

I have my beginning planned out, I may start today or tomarrow. It will probably be shorter than I expected. I'll be doing an "introduction" first, then actually get to the movie and do segments, but it will be shorter than I anticipated which, believe me, is a good thing!

I also will be E-mailing you soon. I was waiting for the nerve to call that author and today I have that nerve, so today I think I will call and then listen to the music samples again for a fresh opinion. I believe I would want more, I liked it when I first heard them.

Will we be getting your Little Mermaid review? I recently just finished all the bonus features!

Slave2moonlight, yes, yes, as I've been trying to say, the reason Cinderella became "tougher" and more proactive was because she needed too. The stakes were much higher and she new something was outright wrong.

[2099net]

Slave2moonlight, yes, yes, as I've been trying to say, the reason Cinderella became "tougher" and more proactive was because she needed too. The stakes were much higher and she new something was outright wrong.

But intellectually, I don't think that's a good enough reason. I mean, in the original she was a prisoner/slave. Wouldn't that make you "tougher" in the first place?

The real reason is, because having a movie made in the 21st Century without a strong personality for the female lead is not acceptable.

But then we have the question: if you have to "action heroine" the princess, is it really a true to the original sequel?

I didn't think Cinderella II was anything like as bad as most people here made out. And, yes, even though I don't count it as a sequel (for reasons stated above) I think its a better sequel than Cinderella III. Why shouldn't we see Cinderella as a Princess and everything being all "pleasent and light"? There was nothing deep about Cinderella II, but I didn't think there had to be. Apart from the misleading "movie" promotion, you pretty got much what the blurb suggested, and let's face it, pretty much what Disney storybooks and comics have been printing in the years since Cinderella was 1st made.

[kurtadisneyite]

Melissa Arps, I believe, was the C-III story adaptor. Artistic credit was given to the "storybook artists".
Disney stopped giving direct credit to artists a couple of years ago.

Some of Cinderella II had the animation quality of a Pokemon movie (act 1 had the worst stair climb I've ever seen a character do). But other parts were decent TV fare.

C III picked up on some of C II; Anastasia's personality expansion, the Prudence character, etc.

Return of Jafar was an interesting sequel in that the first half was done in Australia, and its second half done in Japan. The character animation was superior in the first half, while the FX animation, save for a few glareing examples, worked well in the second.

[Disney Duster]

Melissa Arps, I believe, was the C-III story adaptor. Artistic credit was given to the "storybook artists".
Disney stopped giving direct credit to artists a couple of years ago.

Oh...yea, I checked and you're right, it was adapted by Melissa Arps. So where's Philo Barnhart's stuff? Did that book get canceled?

And...are you saying the Pokemon movies are like even crappier than regular TV animation?

[slave2moonlight]

Some of Cinderella II had the animation quality of a Pokemon movie (act 1 had the worst stair climb I've ever seen a character do). But other parts were decent TV fare.

Return of Jafar was an interesting sequel in that the first half was done in Australia, and its second half done in Japan. The character animation was superior in the first half, while the FX animation, save for a few glareing examples, worked well in the second.

Ah, good stuff here. That's the thing about some of the direct-to-video and TV Disney stuff. Some of their studios had far worse animation quality than others, and sometimes you can see in films that they mix and match. It's like with the TV shows like Aladdin. The weekday ones had the poor quality animation, the Saturday morning ones much better. Some of the Disney sequels weren't bad as cheapquels go, Return of Jafar isn't so bad after repeat viewings, but all the scenes of bad animation are what really leave a bad taste in the viewers' mouths.

[slave2moonlight]

But intellectually, I don't think that's a good enough reason. I mean, in the original she was a prisoner/slave. Wouldn't that make you "tougher" in the first place?

Well, yes, that's why it's believable when she becomes more assertive in part 3.

The real reason is, because having a movie made in the 21st Century without a strong personality for the female lead is not acceptable.

This is true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

But then we have the question: if you have to "action heroine" the princess, is it really a true to the original sequel?

If it "works" for the character, I don't think there's a problem there. As for whether it's a really true sequel or not, well, there are some inconsistencies between part 2 and part 3 (I forget what they were, but I know I posted them in another thread when I had freshly watched all three films), so that always leaves one wondering what IS and ISN'T canon. As I've said before, you have to wonder if or why don't the Cinderellas in the park have knowledge of the events of Cindy 2 and 3, ha. If I have one big problem with Cindy 3, besides the DTV style opening and the broadway style singing (though I did love the film despite them), it would be the fact that it erases the ending of the classic. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't work as a sequel.

I didn't think Cinderella II was anything like as bad as most people here made out. And, yes, even though I don't count it as a sequel (for reasons stated above) I think its a better sequel than Cinderella III. Why shouldn't we see Cinderella as a Princess and everything being all "pleasent and light"? There was nothing deep about Cinderella II, but I didn't think there had to be. Apart from the misleading "movie" promotion, you pretty got much what the blurb suggested, and let's face it, pretty much what Disney storybooks and comics have been printing in the years since Cinderella was 1st made.

I agree that Cindy 2 isn't as bad as it is made out, though maybe I already explained that here. It's main problem was being marketed as a sequel/feature, and my main problem was how cheap it often looked and sounded (hated the songs), but I can still enjoy it for what it is. I do tend to wonder why people can't accept the truly cheap "cheapquels" for what the mostly are, just more merchandise "based" on the film. As you point out, there have been countless books and other things made from these films, and they're not always of the highest quality, but they are usually just written off as kids' merchandise anyway. I realize this is Disney Animation, something held dear, but the fact is that it is direct to video and TV animation, so it's not the same thing. Now, when I AM troubled is when it leaks onto the big screen and it isn't worthy. I wouldn't have minded Bambi 2 on the bigscreen, but Jungle Book 2 was not up to snuff, and even Peter Pan 2 still could have used some major tweaking (like those lousy pop songs!).

[Billy Moon]

The reason I never want to see Cinderella 2 or 3 is that the very idea of a sequel to a classic, traditional fairy-tale makes me feel sick.

But...

Cinderella is hardly a weak film, the least of all in terms of animation. I do have one problem with it, however. The talking mice... They look like they've escaped from a Donald Duck cartoon and dont fit in the same movie with the human characters visually or story-wise at all.
But if you can get around that little inconsistency, Cinderella is a wonderful movie.

[Disney Duster]

Cinderella is hardly a weak film, the least of all in terms of animation. I do have one problem with it, however. The talking mice... They look like they've escaped from a Donald Duck cartoon and dont fit in the same movie with the human characters visually or story-wise at all.
But if you can get around that little inconsistency, Cinderella is a wonderful movie.

I read in a few books and places that reviewers and the authors of the books thought Cinderella kind of did something out of the ordinary in blending cartoony animals and realistic humans together well. Audiences reportedly loved the mice. But you and Luke have now said otherwise. When I last watched Cinderella, I did feel like the mice were so different from the rest of the story, and I wanted to know what was going on with Cinderella while the mice kept stealing her screen time. A lot of people say the stepmother should have had more screen time, but tht could have lessened some of her eerie mystery. But the mice are definately a necessity for the ending, that's one thing for sure!

Spectacularly, perhaps by magic, Cinderella III makes the mice, Lucifer, and the humans, work together perfectly without me having a problem. I think the story focused more on the humans and screentime between animals and humans was more balanced.

[Atlantica]

I totally agree with you Disney Duster. But, while the mice have so much screen time, it really does agrivate me about what Cinderella is doing at that very moment. I suppose it could be argued that she is just doing housework, and that is not very exciting, but I would still liked to have seen more of her all the same. That way, we could have seen more of her character. Not that she is under developed, I would just like to see more of her.

The part with the mice getting food in the morning I always skip on the DVD, as well as the mice getting the beads. To me, it feels as if thoses scenes have been stretched pad out the story slighty, and that is slightly annoying.

Also Disney Duster, thank you for asking for my opinion on The Little Mermaid! Do you really want to hear my opinion on it?

[PatrickvD]

Cinderella III better than the original ??....

[MagicMirror]

Whether or not one thinks the story is better, the craft is better in Cinderella. I'm thinking of animation, colour styling, staging and so forth - they managed to make what is essentially an old woman going up a flight of stairs a much more intense sequence than any of the action scenes in the sequel. I think the difference can be seen even more clearly in Bambi II, where a lot of effort has clearly been put into the backgrounds, but they aren't as subtle, and there isn't quite as much cohesion between them and the characters, composition and colour-wise; one often intrudes on the other. This may be the fault of the technology used, but it's something I felt (not that I could do any better, mind you).

I agree with those that say that there perhaps isn't enough cohesion between the realistically-drawn humans and the cartoony mice in Cinderella. Some of the more cartoony humans - the King, Duke and Stepdaughters - bridge the gap a little bit, but there is very much the feeling, for me at least, that these two worlds don't quite match - particularly when humans and animals are on the screen at the same time. But that's true of the sequels as well.