DVDizzy Forum

Just as many people would find a lot of the old standards of beauty seen in old paintings to be ugly today! A reconfirmation that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

But I think she's beautiful. Not the most ever, but still.

Disney Duster wrote:Well, I thought Drew Barrymore came up with the idea for Ever After...

But I almost find it hard to believe they were going to have Perrault gt his inspiration for writing the story after the story we see, they may not have researched their history enough (and there are some anachronisms). First, Perrault wrote his tale a century after this one, perhaps nearly two centuries after, and the Grand Dame calls the Brothers Grimm, not Perrault, to hear how "the story is real"! And then they mention they wrote about "magic pumpkins", but that wasn't in the Grimm's version!

Nah, Susannah Grant came up with it and got Andy Tennant on board. Drew Barrymore got cast later on. But while developing the script, they had Anjelica Huston in mind for the stepmother role, which she eventually got.

Yeah, Perrault wrote his story in 1697. Ever After is supposedly set between 1510-1516. I'm guessing in the movie's world, Perrault took history and created a fairy tale out of it. You know how it's said that Perrault saw some castle in France and it inspired Sleeping Beauty? It's basically the same for Ever After. Yeah, the Grande Dame invited the Brothers Grimm after they had published their own version. She summons them because she was disturbed by their version and since she was on her deathbed, she felt it was time to set the record straight. One of the brothers joke about how rumor has it the Perrault version with the fairy godmother and magic pumpkins was based on actual events. Then, the other brother mentions how some people claim the shoe was made of fur, while others insist it was made of glass. The Grande Dame then presents the "real" shoe, basically stating Perrault's version was closer to the truth than what the Grimm brothers had written.

Aw, I see. Then that's a lot better.

They say Perrault stayed in the Sleeping Beauty-influencing chateau in 1697. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it goes along with what I thought, he wouldn't have written his stories so far away from the events that inspired him.

However, it is true that the story somewhat existed before Perrault got to it, as you already know. I guess the point Ever After is trying to make is that it's what "really" happened and all the versions of the story were based on it but they're all different because none of them tell the exact real story. Even though apparently the first Cinderella-type story was Egyptian and many years before the "real story"!

But I don't consider the Egyptian one to be Cinderella, and most people don't either. Cinderella really came about first in Basile's version, when she had the name that sounded like Cinderella, "Cenerentola". Perrault's and the Grimm's versions are very much like those, and Perrault's is the one I really consider Cinderella because the name (when translated) is closest, and because that's just what Cinderella is to me and so many people today. It's what the world knows to be the Cinderella. If some parts of the world have their own versions, they call them something other than Cinderella, it's not "Cinderella".

Giambattista Basile's was written in 1634, so...that's kind of close to Ever After's time, but I guess far enough away for him to get some of it wrong or only know it as a fairy tale... I guess Ever After would be the events that inspired Cinderella as we know it, not the Egyptian or Chinese or other versions which aren't really Cinderella, but the Italian, French, and German versions.

I can see how Ever After is like "the real" one, but to me Cinderella's tale of magic really happened, helping animals and all. But it's not Cinderella unless it's either Basile's, Perrault's, or the Grimm's. Disney's version is very definitive especially when considering it uses both Perrault's and the Grimm's...

It's like, how can one version be the best version of that story when the heroine is so unlike the one described in the original stories, and the ball and slipper and Prince are all different (and I still think less impactful!), with no animals or magical help? It's like it's not that story!

But you already said you feel it's the best re-telling of that tale, while Disney's is the best telling of the tale. I think I agree with that!

Disneykid wrote:I adore Disney's Cinderella. To me, it's the definitive cinematic version of the tale. That said...

Has Disney really run out of ideas? All I keep seeing in their future are sequels and remakes. I'm not going to lie.

Yep, it does feel like that, doesn't it?

As for a potential Cinderella remake, I have to agree with some of the bafflement over this. It does seem a somewhat low-key story for a big blockbuster, and I can't help but not really warm to the fact that the writers of 27 Dresses and The Devil Wears Prada are writing this; something tells me that the overall fruit of the endeavour would be a highly anachronistic and gooey romcom rather akin to the former.

To be honest, the only way I would like to really see Cinderella (or Beauty and the Beast, or anything else) remade is if it were produced as an accurate period piece that equally remains generally faithful to the fantastic elements of the original. And anyway, this new remake of Cinderella, along with the new Oz film, might not even happen. Anybody else recall a live-action Aladdin mentioned a few years back?

Btw, if you're reading Scaps, thanks for making me WISTed!

Wondy wrote:Anybody else recall a live-action Aladdin mentioned a few years back?

Whoa, I started that thread?

Dang, now I want that film to be made.

And you're welcome for the WIST!

albert

Some bias has been showing...

UltimateDisney's front page reported a live-action Aladdin, but not this live-action Cinderella.

Escapay didn't like the idea of Disney's animated films becoming live-action, but Aladdin's more than okay with him.

I found out that the "Devil Wears Prada" screenwriter made the pitch to Disney and they bought it.

Disney bought the project. They paid 7 figures. Doesn't that indicate it will get made, since they paid money for it?

Disney Duster wrote:Some bias has been showing...

UltimateDisney's front page reported a live-action Aladdin, but not this live-action Cinderella.

Escapay didn't like the idea of Disney's animated films becoming live-action, but Aladdin's more than okay with him.

If you're assuming that my (obvious) bias towards Aladdin versus Cinderella is why the front page didn't post that news item, you're wrong. I don't run UltimateDisney/DVDizzy, it's not up to me what gets front page news and what doesn't.

And when did I say I didn't like the idea of Disney animated films becoming live-action? I've already expressed my enthusiasm for the live-action Beauty and the Beast, posted in this thread wishful-thinking directors for a live-action Cinderella, and posted a wishful-thinking list of directors I'd like to see tackle other Disney movies in this thread.

I don't want to sit down and watch a shot-for-shot verbatim carbon copy of Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast or any other animated film. That's not my idea of what can be a good remake. If Disney is going to tackle any movie "again", let them start with a fresh slate and be able to bring something new to the approach while still retaining elements of the original if they decide to retain elements of the original. Otherwise why bother remaking it at all? It's like Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. He intentionally remade the entire movie shot-for-shot word-for-word to get the same point across: why remake something if you're not going to add something new to it? It'll only be a newer and inferior version.

albert

I know Luke runs the site and that you do not do anything to work the front page...you should know I know that since we know each other...

:/


I was talking about general bias against this which I think I am detecting...actually I should have just said favoritism, since it's more so that favoritism for Aladdin and other Disney features was showing.

But does that mean Gus Van Sant actually intended to make the movie like that because he didn't want it to be better than Psycho or even want it to be good movie, he wanted to prove a point, even the point that the idea of a remake to psycho was not a good idea at all?

Disney Duster wrote:I know Luke runs the site and that you do not do anything to work the front page...you should know I know that since we know each other...

I know, I'm just clarifying it for the benefit of newer members who may not know that.

Disney Duster wrote:But does that mean Gus Van Sant actually intended to make the movie like that because he didn't want it to be better than Psycho or even want it to be good movie, he wanted to prove a point, even the point that the idea of a remake to psycho was not a good idea at all?

From an interview...

• "Good Will Hunting," which won two Oscars, gave him the clout to remake "Psycho," a failure on every level. I suggest that even though he used the same script, staging and camera angles as the Alfred Hitchcock original, what was missing was the underlying directorial "gaze." Hitchcock regarded women with desire, guilt for that desire and a compulsion to punish. Van Sant, a gay man whose work seems most alive when he's devising shots on the fly and letting his actors improvise, has an entirely different psychology. Van Sant couldn't have agreed more.
  
  "You can't copy a film," he said. "If I hold a camera, it's different than if Irving Penn holds it. Even if it's in the same place, it will magically take on his character. Which was part of the experiment. Our 'Psycho' showed that you can't really appropriate. Or you can appropriate, but it's not going to be the same thing.
  
  "I have this new theory about films," he said. "It's almost like astrology, where if we started on a Tuesday the film will be different than if we started on a Wednesday. Not because of the planets. It's that sometimes you start with the wrong balance and the whole thing gets messed up."

albert

It could just be that there wasn't much news when the Aladdin film was posted. Or the fact that Luke wasn't as busy as he is these days, or that the site has much more to do now that it concerns non-Disney films. Maybe Luke just hasn't heard about this deal because he doesn't have much time to visit the forum.

Either way, "there's a secret anti-Cinderella bias" would be my last guess.

They said the reason UD started covering non-Disney things was because they didn't have enough news from Disney. But I think this is the kind of news they should be reporting, even though Disney didn't report it yet, because things like this are exciting and it's even cooler to hear it before Disney announces it yet. If this film is made, it will come to DVD, so it fits...

Anyway, I realized even further why I don't like these screenwriters and producers making the film. Not only have their films so far not been considered good except only one from each of them out of all the work they've done ("Devil Wears Prada" and "Sherlock Holmes", which bodes well as that's a literature classic close to the period...), but they write comedy, and Cinderella is something much more and I would say above comedy. It's classic literature, and it's has humour like all good classics usually have a bit of everything, but it's serious, not comedic.

I also heard this thing was passed on by other studios because "it was too girly", which actually bodes well for me because it means they aren't changing it too much from the original to make it more manly or something (like Tangled), but that means this apparently wasn't only pitched to Disney, but other studios, meaning it might not be based on the Disney version.

Well, that's all just speculation. Maybe they really have a very good, serious take on the original Disney classic. Heh, I'll keep on dreaming...

Disney's Divinity wrote:It could just be that there wasn't much news when the Aladdin film was posted. Or the fact that Luke wasn't as busy as he is these days, or that the site has much more to do now that it concerns non-Disney films. Maybe Luke just hasn't heard about this deal because he doesn't have much time to visit the forum.

The Aladdin news did come about when the Disney DVD releases started to dry up a bit, and just before the site really started to plunge into non-Buena Vista titles as a result, so its position on the front page can indeed be seen as a means of (and I don't mean this in a mean way) scraping the barrel. Obviously, the Cinderella story hasn't got covered on the front page simply as there's more to report now in terms of home-media releases thanks to diversification, and so only confirmed films (and even then probably only animated ones) will get mentioned on the front page.

Disney's Re-Working Cinderella
A new pitch from Aline Brosh McKenna
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=27909

Live action Cinderella in the works
Disney plans new fairytale adaptation…
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/live-acti ... -the-works

I just hope it's not going to be something like A Cinderella Story, or an obnoxious rom-com. 'Cause we've had enough of those, well at least I have. It's always something set in (fill in random big US city) in which a sad unpopular high school girl has a crappy life, etc. Almost never something even remotely close to the original literary work. I get that it's going to be a "re-imagining", but still. Could it hurt to try and make something original, yet un-obnoxious.

Though seeing how the writer for this film has also written The Devil Wears Prada (which was okay, but not something I'd like this movie to look like) and 27 Dresses, I won't hold my hopes up.

it had better NOT star Johnny Depp and Helena Bohman Carter!

seriously....there are enough Cinderella movies.

theyre gonna set cindy in narnia.just like they did with alice. cindy is prophesised to rescue the kingdom.stepmother must stop her bfr she could.

No Drew is not ugly, how can you say that, especially with all the GLBT protests that she joined ? She is truly a beautiful woman inside and out.

Apparently the screenwriter came to Disney first about this.

If that is true, it gives hope that she was thinking of the Disney Cinderella, not just any Cinderella.

Amanda Seyfried has signed on to be Cinderella!

People have said in this thread that they would have rather seen a less conventionally beautiful Cinderella.

I somewhat agree, but somewhat don't. She is so stunningly beautiful, she doesn't look conventional, and she also looks like she has a lot of life and punch to her, perhaps in her eyes.

The Disney Cinderella had burnt orange hair, so I hope they don't just make her blonde, unless she's not supposed to be the Disney version come to life.

I'm glad they're picking someone people like for her acting and who is a really talented star! Mature quality!