Cinderella vs. Sleeping Beauty

[disneyhv996]

Both are excellent films, and offer something different. However, I enjoyed Cinderella more as a child and more today. Sleeping Beauty is arguably the greatest looking animated film of all time. There are just a few story problems and our protagonist isn't someone we are going to really want to root for.

Verdict: Cinderella is a more enjoyable film, but Sleeping Beauty is close behind.

Edit: I know have decided that I enjoy Sleeping Beauty more, it's just more epic.

[Prince Edward]

I like both movies and their soundtrack, but Sleeping Beauty has always been my favorite of the two because of the wonderful visuals and the beautiful Tchaikovsky score. Besides I like the medieval setting with the gothic look. Maleficent is among my favorite Disney-villaians, and Aurora among my favorite Disney princesses. Sleeping Beauty is my favorite among all the movies made under Walt himself.

Cinderella is charming as well and got some lovely animation, music and characters, but Sleeping Beauty is much, much more detailed visually speaking - just as Walt intended it to be; the pinacle of animation.

[Disney Duster]

These pictures kind of sum up the beauty of each movie very well. From these pictures, I would say you can see how I think Cinderella has the more beautiful art and design.

[Disney's Divinity]

I think Cinderella has a more beauty in simplicity, whereas every shot of SB is a detailed masterpiece. I personally go for Cinderella myself, but I wouldn't say as a fact that it's superior.

Btw, did you have anymore of those compilation images for any other Disney movies (like Aladdin, Mermaid, Snow White, etc.)? Those are nice.

[Disney Duster]

Well at least it can be seen Cinderella has beauty competeable with Sleeping Beauty's. But of course I think Cinderella's more beautiful. ; )

I found the collages at Disney Princess Fanpop (yes, I joined, but only go every once in a while), Alas, I can't find where exactly I got them, you'll have to search through the images. It may have been in the wallpaper section, but I forget, so you may have to look everywhere but the icons section!

[DisneyDude2010]

I think Sleeping Beauty personally. I have always been in awe with the art/animation in the movie! I think It's beautiful! The animation is better than The Little Mermaid (in my opinion) and I know many Disney artists find the art direction in Sleeping Beauty magnificent!

I liked in Cinderella was the "So this is Love" scene and the part where Cinderella's dress transforms. I didn't like the cartoony feel of the animals and the way the pumpkin moved during "Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo". But I thought that Cinderella's Chateau was beautiful, I really loved the floor and the whole feel of the room in "Sing Sweet Nightingale".

I love both films but I think I'll have to pick Sleeping Beauty.

[Lazario]

It looks like it's snowing in both movies.

[Dr Frankenollie]

I recently watched several scenes from both these movies again, and now I can whole-heartedly say that Sleeping Beauty is the superior movie. I previously viewed Beauty as merely style over substance, whereas Cinderella focuses on what really matters: story and characters. However, I now believe that not only does it have far superior visuals (I could honestly watch it with the sound off because it looks so immensely beautiful), but Beauty has the stronger substance too.

Why? Because like with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the titular princess character in Beauty is merely a macguffin. Yes, she's one-dimensional, but she's just meant to be a prop to set the conflict between the Fairies (who are well-rounded and very likable, therefore making up for Aurora's lack of characterisation) and Maleficent.

Meanwhile, Cinderella seems to be telling two stories: a tale about a neglected young woman wanting to escape the confines of her callous stepmother's home; and a tale about some mice who often end up in trouble with an evil cat, whereupon Tom & Jerry-esque hijinks ensue. These two tales don't really fit together, and whilst the animation of them is wonderful and hilarious (not to mention they're much more compelling than Cinderella himself), Lucifer and the mice are overall pointless characters clogging up the plot.

Prince Philip is a much more interesting and developed character than the lifeless Prince Charming; Stefan and Hubert are more likable than Cinderella's King; and Maleficent is a more entertaining and memorable villainess than Lady Tremaine.

Nevertheless, Tremaine is an excellent villain and one of the best things about Cinderella, and there are some utterly great scenes in the latter: 'Sing Sweet Nightingale' is a wonderful song and Cinderella's reflection in the bubbles is animated marvellously; the stepsisters' destroying of Cinderella's dress is a suspenseful and striking sequence; and finally 'Bibbidi Bobbodi Boo' is a fantastic scene, and Verna Felton's portrayal makes the kindly Fairy Godmother rather memorable.

Yet despite this, Beauty has individual scenes that are about a thousand times better than Cinderella's: the initially enchanting and then rather suspenseful Christening sequence; the Fairies' hilarious preparations for Aurora's 16th birthday party; the haunting moments when Aurora is hypnotically led to a spinning wheel by Maleficent; and of course the thrilling climax.

Therefore, it seems pretty clear that Sleeping Beauty is twice the movie Cinderella is, in terms of both style and substance.

[Lazario]

I don't know how the whole "^ This" revolution works but...

Yeah, ^ That.

[Disney's Divinity]

These two tales don't really fit together, and whilst the animation of them is wonderful and hilarious (not to mention they're much more compelling than Cinderella himself), Lucifer and the mice are overall pointless characters clogging up the plot.

I disagree that they don't fit together. Whether or not I actually like the mice v. cat scenes, they do fit in the film because they symbolically re-enact the daily, domestic struggle between Cinderella and her stepmother in an active way that contrasts with the more subtle action that takes place between the human characters they represent. Also, on a more superficial basis, the mice are as necessary as Ariel's fish friends or Pocahontas' sidekicks to give Cinderella a way to make herself relatable to the audience.

Prince Philip is a much more interesting and developed character than the lifeless Prince Charming; Stefan and Hubert are more likable than Cinderella's King; and Maleficent is a more entertaining and memorable villainess than Lady Tremaine.

I disagree with you on all three, except possibly on Maleficent v. Tremaine. There's no doubt that Philip is given more screentime than Cinderella's prince, but in the long run it doesn't make him any more interesting or developed. He's as bland as the other princes, only with more dialogue. He is more proof of why more focus wasn't put on the princes in both Snow White and Cinderella--they are just plain uninteresting. Disney has always struggled with male protagonists, but worst of all in their "princess" films.

As for Stefan and Hubert--I find that they're unlikable. Stefan is somewhat sympathetic because he's trying to protect his daughter, but Hubert is less likable than the King because he wants his son to marry a girl he doesn't even know and/or doesn't like (this is before Philip has met her). The King demands the prince find himself a wife, but he doesn't really care if he actually finds someone he likes. Moreover, his motivation is played off as partly to due with power-tripping and a more understandable desire for grandchildren. Hubert is just ignorant and obsessed with conformity.

Maleficent and Tremaine is a more even battle, and I can understand why people's opinions can be different there. For myself, Tremaine is much more despicable and powerful as an antagonist than Maleficent can ever hope to be. Cinderella's final triumph--and Tremaine's shock--is more satisfying because the viewer despises Tremaine. Maleficent's death inspires no reaction because she's just an obstacle the plot must overcome to get to the end; the viewer has no investment in Aurora or Philip like with Cinderella, so there's no reason to care whether Maleficent wins or loses except as a competition with the fairies. We're supposed to care because the fairies care, but that's hard to achieve when Aurora is someone you can't sympathize with. It doesn't help that Maleficent is vanquished very easily despite her formidable appearance as a dragon--the fact that she dies so easily despite all her power deflates her character even moreso. I would say even the defeats of Lucifer and Diablo are more interesting than that of Maleficent. She is more flashy though.

[Lazario]

Whether or not I actually like the mice v. cat scenes, they do fit in the film because they symbolically re-enact the daily, domestic struggle between Cinderella and her stepmother in an active way that contrasts with the more subtle action that takes place between the human characters they represent.

I don't get that. Could you elaborate?

As for Stefan and Hubert--I find that they're unlikable. Stefan is somewhat sympathetic because he's trying to protect his daughter, but Hubert is less likable than the King because he wants his son to marry a girl he doesn't even know and/or doesn't like (this is before Philip has met her). The King demands the prince find himself a wife, but he doesn't really care if he actually finds someone he likes. Moreover, his motivation is played off as partly to due with power-tripping and a more understandable desire for grandchildren. Hubert is just ignorant and obsessed with conformity.

That's a pretty good point. But, I agree with Frankenollie that Cinderella's King is unbelievably obnoxious. You have to work to read into what kind of King Hubert is. Not Cinderella's King, he is a downright attention-starved, tantrum-throwing manchild. Hubert is a far superior version of this character type and therefore, is easily more likable. The Duke's okay but I don't find myself caring about him. I appreciate that he doesn't annoy me. But, I couldn't care less about what the King would do to him if things didn't work out. In fact, in Sleeping Beauty, Hubert would be sad if things didn't work out. In Cinderella, the King has pathetic anger issues and expects everyone else to pay for them. Motivation aside, you have to judge them as characters too and Hubert is a lot more likable and sympathetic. Bit of a blowhard yeah, but look at how well he and Stefan get along with each other. And how considerate he is of Stefan's feelings. Do you see Cinderella's King getting along with anyone when he's not getting what he wants?

[Disney's Divinity]

Whether or not I actually like the mice v. cat scenes, they do fit in the film because they symbolically re-enact the daily, domestic struggle between Cinderella and her stepmother in an active way that contrasts with the more subtle action that takes place between the human characters they represent.

I don't get that. Could you elaborate?

What I mean is that both the mice and Cinderella must exist in spaces where they have little to no control. The difference being that the mice are more (obviously) active characters than Cinderella because of the slapstick nature of the scenarios. They get to be more obvious in their resistance against Lucifer than Cinderella is realistically capable of being with her stepmother, and help to make the interactions between the human characters from becoming dull if stringed together in a row.

Bit of a blowhard yeah, but look at how well he and Stefan get along with each other. And how considerate he is of Stefan's feelings. Do you see Cinderella's King getting along with anyone when he's not getting what he wants?

That's true. Hubert also gets to interact with his son in a way we don't get to see the King interact with Charming. That said, I've always felt that a lot of his way of interacting with Philip and Stefan is as if they aren't even there and/or they can't make a contribution to his already-made plans. Although, now that I think of it--he does seem to be willing to allow Philip to do what he wants in one of his final scenes ("How will I tell Stefan...?").

[Lazario]

I think you're making a bit of a stretch with that argument. These parallel situations are incidentally connected at best. Heroine helpers in Disney films typically have conflicts of their own and similar obstacles to overcome. Plus: they're mice. Almost every mouse in this kind of film, Disney or not, has cats to contend with.

[Dr Frankenollie]

I disagree that they don't fit together. Whether or not I actually like the mice v. cat scenes, they do fit in the film because they symbolically re-enact the daily, domestic struggle between Cinderella and her stepmother in an active way that contrasts with the more subtle action that takes place between the human characters they represent. Also, on a more superficial basis, the mice are as necessary as Ariel's fish friends or Pocahontas' sidekicks to give Cinderella a way to make herself relatable to the audience.

You're right about how their is a necessity for sidekicks (like, as you said, Ariel's fish friends), but showing the mice listening to Cinderella in the morning, making a dress for the ball and getting the key for her would have been enough. In The Little Mermaid, you don't see Flounder getting into a conflict with a shark when Ariel isn't there. I agree that the mice are necessary, but the extent to which they were used was too much.

Secondly, I don't understand why there has to be symbolism to show Cinderella and the stepmother's conflict when it's already pretty clear; there's no need to show this in a more action-packed way, and dullness can be averted if the mice appear more briefly in scenes with Cinderella.

There's no doubt that Philip is given more screentime than Cinderella's prince, but in the long run it doesn't make him any more interesting or developed. He's as bland as the other princes, only with more dialogue. He is more proof of why more focus wasn't put on the princes in both Snow White and Cinderella--they are just plain uninteresting. Disney has always struggled with male protagonists, but worst of all in their "princess" films.

Okay, perhaps Philip isn't "far" more interesting than Prince Charming, but at least he has a kind of personality. He's somewhat rebellious against his father, romantically impulsive, persuasive and obviously courageous; Prince Charming is nothing. He's just a blank, forgettable space that is never filled. He does nothing. He says barely anything. He doesn't even accompany the Grand Duke in searching for the Princess.

As for Stefan and Hubert--I find that they're unlikable. Stefan is somewhat sympathetic because he's trying to protect his daughter, but Hubert is less likable than the King because he wants his son to marry a girl he doesn't even know and/or doesn't like (this is before Philip has met her). The King demands the prince find himself a wife, but he doesn't really care if he actually finds someone he likes. Moreover, his motivation is played off as partly to due with power-tripping and a more understandable desire for grandchildren. Hubert is just ignorant and obsessed with conformity.

As Lazario said, the King is simply a childish and short-tempered character who doesn't care about anyone but himself. As you yourself noticed, King Hubert does care about others (e.g. "What am I going to tell Stefan?" shows that he isn't entirely determined to stop Philip and the way he says it shows his compassion for his brother) and even though he's similar to the King in design, he is a genuinely caring and therefore likable character.

Maleficent and Tremaine is a more even battle, and I can understand why people's opinions can be different there. For myself, Tremaine is much more despicable and powerful as an antagonist than Maleficent can ever hope to be. Cinderella's final triumph--and Tremaine's shock--is more satisfying because the viewer despises Tremaine. Maleficent's death inspires no reaction because she's just an obstacle the plot must overcome to get to the end; the viewer has no investment in Aurora or Philip like with Cinderella, so there's no reason to care whether Maleficent wins or loses except as a competition with the fairies. We're supposed to care because the fairies care, but that's hard to achieve when Aurora is someone you can't sympathize with. It doesn't help that Maleficent is vanquished very easily despite her formidable appearance as a dragon--the fact that she dies so easily despite all her power deflates her character even moreso. I would say even the defeats of Lucifer and Diablo are more interesting than that of Maleficent. She is more flashy though.

As I mentioned previously, Aurora is a macguffin. She's like the diamond necklace in a crime story or a kidnapped princess. Just because we don't entirely sympathise with her directly doesn't mean we don't sympathise with the Fairies, Stefan, et cetera. Admittedly, Tremaine's look of shock is more inherently satisfying, but Maleficent's death gives a sense of success and of completion.

[Big Disney Fan]

For some reason, I just think that "Sleeping Beauty" is better, if only because it's not quite as sad and tear-jerking as "Cinderella", and also because this film is my mother's all-time favorite Disney animated movie.

[Super Aurora]

doesn't mean we don't sympathize with the Fairies,

I don't. I was hoping they get killed. Trollololol.

[Dr Frankenollie]

doesn't mean we don't sympathize with the Fairies,

I don't. I was hoping they get killed. Trollololol.

What's wrong with them?

[tsom]

1. I don't understand why people think Philip is a developed character. I researched Sleeping Beauty for my Tangled thesis, and honestly, Philip only has more dialogue and that's it. Even Prince Eric is more developed than Philip in my opinion.

2. Tremaine and Maleficent are both great villanesses. The only difference is that Maleficent has magical powers. Lady Tremaine had a better motive and did the dirty work herself. I still don't get why Maleficent couldn't go looking for Aurora herself?

3. In my Disney class, when we studied Cinderella, we talked about how clever it was that Disney had extended the Perrault story by having animals go through the same thing Cinderella was going through. And although I'm not a fan of animal stories, I like how the animals were integrated into Cinderella's story. And it was also a good way to explain where the horses, coachman, and footman all came from for Cinderella's entourage to the ball.

[Lazario]

I don't understand why there has to be symbolism to show Cinderella and the stepmother's conflict when it's already pretty clear; there's no need to show this in a more action-packed way, and dullness can be averted if the mice appear more briefly in scenes with Cinderella.

Or if they were better, more complex, interesting characters. You have a few personality traits and, of course, voices that people sort of recognize as being individual to the mouse's design / colors / size and shape. And a bunch of scenes that, yes, diminish the effectiveness of Cinderella the heroine's story. But I do have to say something in the movie's defense, even when I was contradicting Divinity, I kept in mind the movie's idea of generating suspense with the parallel story of the mice getting through the house and the house's immense size being an obstacle later on. I suppose this wouldn't be so effective if the movie weren't also pushing this angle while Cinderella was onscreen. A big part of Cinderella's story is the chateau. For whatever reason. And it does pad out the screentime a little.

Prince Charming is nothing. He's just a blank, forgettable space that is never filled. He does nothing. He says barely anything. He doesn't even accompany the Grand Duke in searching for the Princess.

Actually, me and Duster were tossing around some interesting theories on this. I believe that Cinderella's Prince was gay. At least from the story's introduction and build up. I mean, think about it. If you take out the one scene of him dancing with her and trying to make her stay, then the kiss and run-off wedding, you have to wonder just why the King is really pushing the Prince so hard to get married. Because he has lousy taste in women and can't keep one around? That's the way the movie covers itself. But, look closer. The movie doesn't explain what kind of person he is and what he does when he isn't at the castle. Yet we know that he's "wild" and has "bad ideas" about romance- so... that's going to be solved by a Lottery Ball? (To the King and Duke, it is a Lottery and he's the arrow they're throwing at the dartboard. To them, whoever he ends up with is completely random.) It doesn't matter what kind of woman he ends up with so long as they don't have to come to terms with his sexuality. Which we can easily assume is same-sex by the King's unexplained anger and desperation (now we've found believable motivation). And, even with the movie's story turning the way it does, you could see what happens as him thinking he'll be disinherited or out on his ass or something bad if he doesn't find some woman to marry.

I don't. I was hoping they get killed. Trollololol.

What's wrong with them?

Ignore him. He's just unhappy that old chubby women get more screentime than skinny, curvy, picturesque princess Aurora.

He's obsessed with all things chubby or fat.
(He'll know what that means.)

[Super Aurora]

What's wrong with them?

Ignore him. He's just unhappy that old chubby women get more screentime than skinny, curvy, picturesque princess Aurora.

He's obsessed with all things chubby or fat.
(He'll know what that means.)

Obsess? You take that shit way out of context. I think you're the one who's obsess since you are the one who bring it up all the time.

It's not just the screen time ordeal, (which is one of the reason. I want to see the main heroine in the story, not three mary-sue old farts)

but the fact that they have such mary-sue personalities (aurora has it too but not shoved in my face/throat) crammed down my throat make me want to puke.