DVDizzy Forum

RyGuy wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: I could see that. Essentially they are continuing the concept.

I hate to say it but I don’t think they will make Enchanted 2 at this point. My oldest was in utero when the first one came out and he turns 13 in a month. They haven’t started filming anything. At a minimum it’d be 15 years since the last release. I don’t think Enchanted had the same cultural impact as something like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or Mary Poppins where people will rush out to see a sequel - especially when you consider that something as iconic as Mary Poppins failed to attract the audience Disney hoped.

I’m at the point where the longer they wait, the LESS I want them to make a sequel because I fear they will just make Gisele old, bitter, and jaded. And that didn’t work out so well for Luke Skywalker. I suppose they could flip it and make most of the movie take place in Andalasia and have it be animated, but unless they can find better quality 2D animation than they found for Godmothered, it won’t feel like the same universe.

I think you guys are crazy for thinking this film about totally new characters was supposed to be the Enchanted sequel. I also think they can make a good real sequel and make it with the same kind of animation as before.

Fareb:
I didn't mean the issue was fairytale films... I think a film that implies there is a parallel animated world of fairlytale-like qualities and that people can crossover to ours... THAT falls apart if you start to dissect it. No idea what Frozen and F2 have to do with it...

And yes, I was talking about the cultural impact of Enchanted, and I agree with your view on it. But I don't think Disney started the trend of de-constructing their own tropes. That was Shrek, and Disney took that more aggressive approach and turned it into a balance of gentle poking and embracing at the same time. But the trend was already there, and it continues to be there. Enchanted was just one cog in the machine...

DisneyDuster:
I don't think people here are saying they literally think this was a spiritual sequel to Enchanted. That sequel is it's own project, but this felt like a cheap version of a similar concept to keep us "entertained" in the meantime...

Marce82 wrote:
DisneyDuster:
I don't think people here are saying they literally think this was a spiritual sequel to Enchanted. That sequel is it's own project, but this felt like a cheap version of a similar concept to keep us "entertained" in the meantime...

yep exactly! its just been too long and I think they've just decided to take the easier cheaper route...

its especially frustrating b/c they didn't even need to focus on half the cast of the original, which would have let them lower the budget, they already had Idina Menzel on their payroll, they could have focused on her and Edward's new adventures in Andalasia. Its mind-boggling that all this time they've had Menzel and never once thought "hey she's the voice of ELSA and she was also a princess* in Enchanted, lets greenlight that sequel STAT!




*she became a princess at the end of the movie when she marries Ed

Disney Duster wrote:I think you guys are crazy for thinking this film about totally new characters was supposed to be the Enchanted sequel. I also think they can make a good real sequel and make it with the same kind of animation as before.

Haha. Maybe so? To be clear, though, I don’t necessarily think that Godmothered was the Enchanted sequel . . . more that I could see Disney going down a route like that (and not they in fact DID go down such a route).

A similar example of this might be Home Alone 3. It’s no longer about the McAllisters, but still a continuation of the themes from the first two movies. Executed well, it could work, ie a naive character from the fairy tale world comes to the real world and encounters a jaded real world character. The fairy tale character helps the real world character believe in magic/fantasy again, and the real world character helps the fairy tale character be more realistic. And the overarching link between the films is each world has something of value to teach the other.

Ohhhhhh. Ok guys, if you mean you didn't think this was supposed to be the actual Enchanted sequel, ok.

I finally got Disney+ an watched this! We'll see if I end up keeping Disney+, but I can now share my thoughts!

Some of this was really funny! It reminded me too much of Enchanted a lot of the time though, and this ended up being an inferior film to Enchanted where you don't care about the characters as much as in that film, though I did really like Eleanor's journey.

When they played “Everybody’s Talking’” that was so funny! So daring if you’ve seen the movie it’s referencing!

Do you guys think the “Create ice castles? I wish!” line was a reference to Elsa in Frozen?

When Eleanor and Mack's kids were singing and the teenage guy was like, “I’ll pay you to stop!” and another one threw a snowball at the girls, and then Eleanor retaliated with the snow falling on them, seeing her do that with her magic in that flowery, poofy pink dress and continuing to sing was like super girly femininity fighting back against male asshole-ishness. It was awesome!

Something I don’t get is, why would they close the portals from the Motherland to Earth if they were going to re-train some fairies as Tooth Fairies? Or did they decide to even nix the Tooth Fairy training?

I thought the girl who played Jane was really good, and that her character and her problems were actually the biggest emotional core of the story. I really felt for her and identified with her when she said her own mother never said she could do anything or would be amazing. My mom was kinda like that to me as I grew up. But I was hoping Mack would say to her she does think she could do it and be amazing instead of say she would find Eleanor for her. But then she said Jane didn’t need a spell to be magical, so she did finally say what she needed to!

But we don't know how Mackenzie lived after the movie! Did she get a new job? Did she just get with Hugh and depend on him for a living?!

I thought the animation in the end was fine! It was not awful like you guys made me fear. It isn’t top quality WDAS animation, but it was suitable for this project.

So, this was a pretty lukewarm movie, nothing spectacular, but had a bunch of funny lines and moments. I would buy the film just because I love fairy godmothers, but not really to watch that much, except the magical special effects scenes and that beautiful Christmas party ball gown Mack got! This was an ok film, it was feel-good and wasn’t awful. I just won’t be re-watching it very much, if at all, actually.

Finally saw it with my best friend! Godmothered is so so cute and I liked it, but the main problem is that all of this has already been done in Enchanted. Jillian Bell wasn't bad as Eleanor, she acted way too much like Amy Adams’ Giselle. And why was the ending animated, but the beginning wasn't?

Also, I wished the dad wasn't dead. I know Enchanted had Robert and the mom being divorced. But the divorce would have match the Isla Fisher character's negativity perfectly.

I don't think that's a spoiler because even the trailer showed that, but I was thinking the movie would have had more weight if it had that idea you preferred, too.

bruno_wbt wrote:I can spill everything now! xD


In the animated scene, if you look closely at the very end, you're going to see a little boy with a godmother fairy costume!

Also in the concert scene,you'll see two fathers with a baby.


Well done, Disney!

In how many countries is this gonna be banned for all that?

I finally saw this film today, and I absolutely loved it. I laughed, I cried; it was perfect.

I did notice the 2 dads in the crowd and the little boy in the ballgown at the end!!! (You put them in spoiler tags, so I just edited this to add spoiler tags)

disneyprincess11 wrote:And why was the ending animated, but the beginning wasn't?

The Laughing Place article Sotiris posted wrote:Sharon: We were very lucky in that we were only four days from the end when we had to stop because of coronavirus. So there was just four days that were missing and we found very inventive ways to make them work afterwards, one of which was the animated coda ending, which had been talked about before anyway, but then we decided that we would film a live-action ending. But we didn't quite get to do that, so we went back to the idea of a little animated ending for it.

I started reading the IMDB trivia after watching the film, and the very first item was that they used an animated ending due to Coronavirus. But this doesn't make sense why they didn't use the animated prologue...was that not completed first? The animated prologue was so similar to the final film- why the heck did they cut it? Eleanor read the letter out loud in the animated one, whereas in the final film, we don't quite know what her wish was, but they could have just edited a few seconds if they didn't want her wish to be focused on a boy....?

Disney Duster wrote:Do you guys think the “Create ice castles? I wish!” line was a reference to Elsa in Frozen?

That was my thought when I watched it!

Disney Duster wrote:But we don't know how Mackenzie lived after the movie! Did she get a new job? Did she just get with Hugh and depend on him for a living?!

I think when Mackenzie said that her kids are her true loves, that showed that it doesn't even matter if she ended up with Hugh or if she got a new job, as far as "Prince Charming isn't the only way to happily ever after." I'm sure they did get together & she did get a new job (maybe Hugh even was able to help her get one at Channel 4 News!).

(and now that I'm reading through that LP article:)

Laughing Place article wrote:Sharon: Indeed! Yes, very much so. We wanted something that would just confirm the message of the movie in that little animation. So it was very exciting to put in the little boy who wanted to be the fairy godmother. When I first saw that, it made me very, very happy. So yeah, very definitely, we wanted to confirm that message, that in today's world, unlike in traditional fairytales, happily ever after doesn't mean marrying a prince and living in a castle or it doesn't mean a man and a woman and it's completely subjective. And everybody's idea of happiness is very different. And the real magic from life comes from the everyday things in our life that bring us joy and happiness. So that was very important. And yeah, I love that. I love that we'd never seen that before in a Disney movie, so that's great.

disneyprincess11 wrote:Jillian Bell wasn't bad as Eleanor, she acted way too much like Amy Adams’ Giselle.

As a big Giselle fan, I really loved Eleanor, but I can see that she may be too derivative for some people...I thought she was really enjoyable.

I am seeing some Elf comparisons online, too, and that's another all-time favorite film for me, so Godmothered was right up my alley from the get-go.

I am so glad you loved the movie, Amy! I thought Eleanor was different enough from Giselle myself though.

As for a happy ending not being about Prince Charming, yes, that's what the movie was trying to say, but not knowing how Mackenzie supported herself and her kids, who she said are her happily ever after...it bothers me.

^ Of course, Eleanor isn't an exact carbon-copy of Giselle (they are their own characters!), but they are both optimistic fish-out-of-waters, and they are similar in that way.

It's a Disney film; I doubt that Mack and the girls ended up homeless on the street. She had the credentials to run the TV studio, so surely another company wanted her - especially with the viral videos and all! - so maybe Hugh didn't help her get a job at Channel 4 News & Mack got a new job on her own, or maybe Hugh did put in a good word with his new bosses!

Hi guys. This doesn't concern what you're all talking about right now, but I've been searching for a clip or two of the animated Godmothered epilogue as everybody is saying that the animation quality is awful. Since I have no intention of watching this film itself I'd like the check the animation out to judge its merits (or lack thereof) for myself, but I can't find any footage. Only stills. Does anybody have any links that might be of use?

From what I can gather the animation was done by Studio AKA in the UK. Their reel looks magnificent. Can they really have put out something as "godawful" and "amateurish" as the internet is making it out to be?

Check out their reel here: https://studioaka.co.uk/

I can't speak for everyone else, but I didn't find it terrible. To be honest, I didn't find it amazing either. I'd describe it as cute and storybookish and appropriate for what it was trying to convey. It's not fluid, it's a bit jerky in motion and it kind of feels unfinished and unpolished, but I assume that was a deliberate choice. Maybe that's what's off-putting to people? As I said, it felt like a moving storybook illustration to me, albeit a bit crude and rough.

Also, I thought it was the only part of an otherwise crappy movie worth seeing, so maybe I'm biased.

Julian, before I saw the movie, I had trouble finding video, just pictures, so I think Disney is keeping it under wraps except within the whole film. Mooky, yes, I think moving storybook illustration hits the nail on the head!

I thought the animation was pretty good. Not bad, not great, just good.

Yeah, the animation wasn't on par with Enchanted or other animated Disney movies, but it was stylized, and it was just nice to have animation again. I still can't believe they didn't use the finished animated prologue in the film. And, the very beginning of the film had an animated-turned-live action bird, right? Like it would have been a transition from the animated prologue. I wonder if they'll do more interviews (probably not) to explain why they went with a live-action opening.

Yeah I'm with you Amy.

Thank you all for your feedback.

When describing the animation as "jerky", is it possible for you guys to estimate the frame rate? Obviously it is not on ones, or even twos. Perhaps it is on threes? (i.e. 8 drawings per second) Is it comparable to anime? Or does "jerky" in this case mean really jerky, as in more like an animatic or a slideshow?

Thanks for clarifying and satiating my curiosity.

Someone said they thought it was on the threes, but it looked flowy to me. Maybe it was the twos. Honestly it didn't look jerky at all to me, I think people just didn't like the style.

The deleted animated opening is now available to watch at the animation studio's website.

https://www.studioaka.co.uk/OurWork/godmothered