She's contracted for series four, which will start this fall. Her character was totally annoying in the two episodes in which she appeared, I'm hoping she'll improve with the next series.DisneyDude2010 wrote:Lily James, looks alright i guess, not sure why she's being deemed the downton abbey starlett, she was only in two episodes lmfao!
That's not a bad idea actually. Time travel is awesome.WonderNeverOz wrote:Personally I think if they somehow use the story of cinderella 3 and make it more epic, it would turn out amazing.
Her character became a lot more likeable during last year's Christmas special.Escapay wrote:Her character was totally annoying in the two episodes in which she appeared, I'm hoping she'll improve with the next series.
This is the main reason I'm not jumping for joy she was cast. (Especially when I compare her to someone like Emma Watson, who's a very good actress, imo. I would've rather have seen her opposite Cate Blanchett.)Escapay wrote:Her character was totally annoying in the two episodes in which she appeared, I'm hoping she'll improve with the next series.
Albert
Wait, so you thought Cinderella III was good after your hate when you first heard about it and your proclaimed hatred of all Disney dtv sequels?PatrickvD wrote:That's not a bad idea actually. Time travel is awesome.WonderNeverOz wrote:Personally I think if they somehow use the story of cinderella 3 and make it more epic, it would turn out amazing.
I hate the concept of DTV's with their disgusting outsourced animation. I never said there couldn't be good ideas in them. Aladdin & The King of Thieves has some nice ideas for example. But the concept behind DTV's is fundamentally flawed from both a creative and business viewpoint. Making sequels to Disney's classics and releasing them as babysitters is just insulting to everyone involved in the making of these films. You think that's what the animators on Bambi were hoping? "Geeh, I sure hope they have a bunch of Australians copy our work to make a sequel for all the moms who need some time alone about 60 years from now." It's so cheapening to Disney's brand. The damage, I think, will never be undone. WDAS is still playing second fiddle to Dreamworks and PIXAR in the public's view, despite delivering similar quality. We know lion King 2 was outsourced, but the average Joe does not. Now the public thinks the studio that made Beauty and the Beast also made Hunchback 2 so why spend another dime on a ticket for a WDAS movie? People stopped taking Disney seriously, because they didn't take themselves seriously. You'd think I would have explained this enough by now, I feel like such a broken record repeating this over and over.Disney Duster wrote:Wait, so you thought Cinderella III was good after your hate when you first heard about it and your proclaimed hatred of all Disney dtv sequels?PatrickvD wrote: That's not a bad idea actually. Time travel is awesome.
That still doesn't make some of them bad! And it's funny you mention 'Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest' because many people agree that it's one of the best DisneyToon films! I still want to see 'Lilo and Stitch: Stitch Has a Glitch' and some of the Winnie the Pooh sequels (I've only seen 'The Tigger Movie' which was a pleasant surprise) because I've heard they have good animation and stories. And, to me, that's what really matters in an animated film! Plus, the Walt Disney Animation Studios have copied themselves before. Does that cheapen 'Robin Hood', for example?PatrickvD wrote:You think that's what the animators on Bambi were hoping? "Geeh, I sure hope they have a bunch of Australians copy our work to make a sequel for all the moms who need some time alone about 60 years from now."
yeah i thought that cinderella 3 really tried hard to actually be a sequel. true, the animation is not the best but the songs are not bad (I love More Than a Dream) and they really understood cinderella's personality and the story is pretty clever using a important element in a fairy tale and completely twisting the story. I would love to see the black pumpkin coach in live action, that would be a great scene to seeDisney Duster wrote:The idea behind DTV's is bad, but that doesn't mean every DTV was bad, or meant to be a just babysitter. In Cinderella III, it is known they tried to make animation and story as good as they could, meaning theatrical quality if they could. The director even said they tried to do some things better than the original movie (emotional, dramatic, or exciting moments or something, I forget exactly what he said). And yes, Bambi II and Lilo and Stitch 2 were attempts at theatrical quality animation as well, and for those films and Cinderella III, sometimes they succeeded (the moment Cinderella remembers the ball looks almost exactly like the original film).
Probably all for the best.it's interesting how disney chose Lily James as Cinderella who has a very classy elegant look, instead of choosing a person who has a strong and boy-ish look like kristen stewart and mia wasikowska.
It has now been officially confirmedDisneykid wrote: Richard Madden (Game of Thrones) is rumored to be playing the Prince, a choice I'd certainly prefer over the potential teen idols with screaming fangirls.
..... 
I agree he is very handsome. Great choicePatrickvD wrote:Madden is quite charming to say the least.
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/exclusi ... XETL9.dpufOkay, onto the non-Marvel Disney pics. First, there’s the live-action CINDERELLA, which is being directed by Kenneth Branagh and stars Lilly James as the titular character, Richard Madden (Game of Thrones) as the Prince, and Cate Blanchett as Lady Tremaine. That much we already know, but in terms of story, it looks like they’re going a different direction, as CINDERELLA actually meets Prince Charming before the ball and dives deep into her childhood origins, losing her family, and what led to her living with her wicked stepmother. So, very similar to EVER AFTER, the last CINDERELLA retelling on film.
