DVDizzy Forum

Sleeping Beauty. It's the movie I love most of all the movies made under Walt. It's artwork, music and the characters... Love it!

Super Aurora wrote:You don't know Lazario, do you?

Piss off- he said I'm awesome!!








(YOU KNOW "piss off" WAS JUST A JOKE, no moderator/administrator hand-slapping required)

Lazario wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:You don't know Lazario, do you?

Piss off- he said I'm awesome!!








(YOU KNOW "piss off" WAS JUST A JOKE, no moderator/administrator hand-slapping required)

He also said I'm awesome too in his sig. lol

The difference is: My name came first, therefore I'm MORE awesome.






yes i'm well aware that your post was a joke. no need state the obvious.

Lazario wrote:Everyone knows Sleeping Beauty is better. It is better. That's the way it is. Argue to the contrary, if you must, until it comes out your ears. But you can't change the truth.

I'd *love* to see you debating this with Disney Duster!

Goliath wrote:

Lazario wrote:Everyone knows Sleeping Beauty is better. It is better. That's the way it is. Argue to the contrary, if you must, until it comes out your ears. But you can't change the truth.

I'd *love* to see you debating this with Disney Duster!

Me too, and speeking of Duster where is he? This is like the perfect thread for him!

Flanger-Hanger wrote:
Me too, and speeking of Duster where is he? This is like the perfect thread for him!

he going be coming back soon. He recently PM me. Has some busy times lately so had to leave for adjustments. I think he said he's much better now and will come back.

Who is this notorious 'Disney Duster'?

A kooky, though well-meaning, Cinderella fanatic. Come to think of it, he seems to have been absent for... what, a month now, so far?

Whilst Cinderella filled its gaps with annoying mice, Sleeping Beauty decided to go with amazecock visuals.

Sleeping Beauty for me.

Goliath wrote:I don't care much for both movies. They all suffer from far too much rotoscoping/live-action referencing, which make the main characters look stiff and lifeless. Why do an animated feature when you're not using the possibilities of 'cartoon acting'? By the 1960's, Disney avoided this trap by having mostly animal protoganists (the dalmatians, the jungle animals) and by animating the human characters much more loosely; not the rigid, far too literal style that kills all the fun and excitement in both Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty (and Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland as well).

Funny you mention the fact that you don't like the non-catoony way Disney animated back then. I personally think that this 'live-action' based style is a thing that makes these earliest movies unique. Cartoon fun is delivered by the dwarfs or the mice in Cinderella(personally i don't care much about the humour in disney animated films and think that some contain stuff that is even on the line of becoming childish, like Genie in aladdin),but the humans looked human. I find these movies more done like paintings, or classic illustrated books, wanting them to reflect reality as close as possible, so that we would recognize ourselves in the human characters like Cinderella or Snowwhite. I always loved Cinderella for example because it was the way it was. The characters look sometimes like porcelain(maybe called stiff) figures dancing trough an oil canvas and i think it was done on purpose.

Remember the scene in which the king is talking about how his son has to marry and explains us the story of a girl and boy and how they meet. He uses two figures, porcelain(a shepherdess i believe) , to portray this. The two figurines are porcelain baroque-style figures that many rich french people put on there mantelpieces in the 18th century. Even my grandmother had them. They resemble the origin and date the story of Cinderella was written and is set in(Its a french story of Charles Perrault and in many books illustrated baroque-esque). Looking at those porcelain mantelpieces, like them illustrated in the film, in real live, you'll see that they actually bare a resemblence of cinderella and her prince. So in some way, yes i agree that the characters can look a bit bland, but i think it is what makes the movie unique in style and it was in the minds of creators all the time when drawn.
Sleeping Beauty is drawn completely different, but when looking in history books you'll see it resembles Monk writings.

@ Toky: There's an important difference between the human characters in Disney's 1950 animated films and those in his earlier (and later) features. Look at Gepetto, Stromboli, Lampwick, the human characters at Dumbo's circus, the teenage characters in 'All the cats join in', Peter, Tetti Tati etc.: you'll immediately notice how lively they are. Even though Disney's animators used live-action reference then as well, they didn't copy it; they interpreted it. But when you look at the way Cinderella moves, or Wendy, or Alice and especially that sister of her, you'll see every pose and every movement is directly copied from live-action reference material. See, for example, how lively the segments with the cat and the mice are, and how stiff the parts with Cinderella and her stepmother are.

Later animated features still try to make the human characters as believable as possible, but they're much looser. Look at Merlin, for instance, or Mad Madam Mim, Madam Medusa and Snoops: they're still believable as human beings, yet they're nothing like the stiff characters from the 1950's. The Disney animators of the 1990's have understand this perfectly: all their human characters perfectly fit the cartoon world, without them becoming 'just cartoons'. That's why I think the 1990's films fit best with Walt's first five features. Because they give the 'illusion of life', instead of trying to copy life.

My problem with having Cinderella herself look so realistic is that her design (and the Prince's and Stepmother's) doesn't fit with any other character in the movie. The stepsisters, the Duke, the King, the footman, Major and Bruno as humans, the orchestra cundoctor etc. all have a style more exagerated in proportions than the main character. It doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the movie so much, but it's very noticeable design flaw. Alice is like this too for example, but all the exagerated characters are in Wonderland itself so it works better.

Cinderella is better storywise and with character development as others have said. Cindy is someone you can root for and Lady Tremaine is a villain you can truly despise.

But Sleeping Beauty is more visually appealing and has more of an "epic" quality to it. But the storyline is flat and the character devlopment (aside from the 3 good faires and Mally to an extent) is kinda flat. But the soundtrack is gorgeous.

Like others have said Cinderella has the substance whereas Sleeping Beauty has the style.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:My problem with having Cinderella herself look so realistic is that her design (and the Prince's and Stepmother's) doesn't fit with any other character in the movie. The stepsisters, the Duke, the King, the footman, Major and Bruno as humans, the orchestra cundoctor etc. all have a style more exagerated in proportions than the main character. It doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the movie so much, but it's very noticeable design flaw.

There is an intent in some of Disney's movies to separate the realistic characters from the more exaggerated ones. That's why in Snow White, she has five fingers, and the Dwarves have four. Same goes with Aladdin and the Genie.

To me though, Cinderella does look unremarkable compared to the other princesses.

Cinderella all the way!

Jay wrote:Cinderella is better storywise and with character development as others have said. Cindy is someone you can root for and Lady Tremaine is a villain you can truly despise.

Like others have said Cinderella has the substance whereas Sleeping Beauty has the style.

On paper, maybe... But, what about what the style mixed with the music is able to evoke? The animators / filmmaers didn't just take influence from rich cultural art history- they sought to create emotion and story that wasn't told through simple character actions. Something does come to life in that movie through the ambience, atmosphere, and the imagery- which really are characters on their own. Very much like the minstrel from Robin Hood only present in every scene. They used the style and art as substance.

And, really, this is why Sleeping Beauty is so remarkable and easily one of Disney's top 5 best animated films ever. Because, generally as a rule of thumb, Disney stories and characters are always weak. At best, as in Cinderella and Snow White (clearly more fair and better match-ups for this little VS. project than Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty), they even / balance each other out- with the help of the artwork and music. But if we harp too much on the story, it has to be aknowledged how formulaic everything in the films usually are. And therefore, the best films are usually the most unique ones. As in the case of Fantasia, Dumbo, The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (although we know how important the cutesiness is to that film's success, as opposed to the much harsher Pinocchio and Dumbo), Pinocchio (I didn't mean to short-change that film), Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland. The ones that changed the formula (like Pooh, where there was almost no real suspense) and kept Disney trying new things. As we know, the Disney creative team were talented enough for so long to usually succeed with all new experiments (though, again, I can't say enough how much of a failure Bambi is).

Then, let's look quickly at the two movies' greatest flaws. Sleeping Beauty's Aurora and Cinderella's King. I'm sorry, but isn't an old white heterosexual man complaining that his crazy, wild son won't settle down / shackle into a more conservative, child-bearing royal metaphorical prison lifestyle more annoying than a girl with little personality who yearns to find something to take her away from her boring and uneventual life? Think about it. Now, if Cinderella is a stronger heroine than Aurora, why is she (the main character, whereas the fairies are the main characters of Sleeping Beauty) basically trapped in a tower and in need of being rescued? She may have a little more sass, which makes her better, but how is she truly a greater asset to her film if she's basically overruled and caged so many times toward the end of the film? How is that a fantasy any girl wants to be a part of? When disaster strikes, just sit still until help arrives, then go downstairs and put your best slippers on.

That's why I say Disney's characters are never as strong as people let on (alright- 101 Dalmatians is an exception). Only in, perhaps, the animal films- where there is no human code to answer to. The human system kind of ruins all human characters, not to mention Disney SO rarely found truly novel or amusing things for them to do. So they usually harnassed into typical male and female roles. Very stereotypical. And of course, that's why I say we should all value the animation's luster and the power of the music along with the images. Sleeping Beauty comes out on top in both cases. Hell- the story's stakes are even higher. Considering how both films try to involve suspense and adventure in the mix.

Lazario wrote:At best, as in Cinderella and Snow White (clearly more fair and better match-ups for this little VS. project than Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty)

The reason I chose to do a 'Cinderella vs. Sleeping Beauty' thread as opposed to a 'Snow White vs. Cinderella' thread was because Big Disney Fan started a 'Snow White vs. Pinocchio' thread beforehand.

Lazario wrote:And therefore, the best films are usually the most unique ones. As in the case of Fantasia, Dumbo, The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (although we know how important the cutesiness is to that film's success, as opposed to the much harsher Pinocchio and Dumbo), Pinocchio (I didn't mean to short-change that film), Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland.

I agree entirely; personally, I'd also add The Great Mouse Detective to that list because of how quirky and original it was.

Lazario wrote:Then, let's look quickly at the two movies' greatest flaws. Sleeping Beauty's Aurora and Cinderella's King. I'm sorry, but isn't an old white heterosexual man complaining that his crazy, wild son won't settle down / shackle into a more conservative, child-bearing royal metaphorical prison lifestyle more annoying than a girl with little personality who yearns to find something to take her away from her boring and uneventual life? Think about it.

The King might have been annoying to you, but to me he was very amusing and so was the Grand Duke; watching their comical antics was a nice variation to all the comedy with the mice and Lucifer.

Lazario wrote:Now, if Cinderella is a stronger heroine than Aurora, why is she (the main character, whereas the fairies are the main characters of Sleeping Beauty) basically trapped in a tower and in need of being rescued? She may have a little more sass, which makes her better, but how is she truly a greater asset to her film if she's basically overruled and caged so many times toward the end of the film? How is that a fantasy any girl wants to be a part of? When disaster strikes, just sit still until help arrives, then go downstairs and put your best slippers on.

Whilst she might not be an ideal role model for little girls, Cinderella is still a much stronger heroine than Aurora in terms of character, as Aurora is generic and bland, and is more-or-less a combination of Snow White and Cinderella. The story department didn't just replicate Snow White and bring back Adriana Caselotti, they created an original heroine that was different and had more depth. Yes she mostly relies on the help of others, but she's daring and obviously hard-working.[/i]

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Lazario wrote:And therefore, the best films are usually the most unique ones. As in the case of Fantasia, Dumbo, The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (although we know how important the cutesiness is to that film's success, as opposed to the much harsher Pinocchio and Dumbo), Pinocchio (I didn't mean to short-change that film), Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland.

I agree entirely; personally, I'd also add The Great Mouse Detective to that list because of how quirky and original it was.

I would agree that TGMD/Basil is pretty unique compared to most of Disney's films, mostly for Basil (thankfully, he wasn't completely neutered like most main characters in Disney films). But--more to Laz--how is The Rescuers in that list? I suppose the portrayal of Medusa's child abuse is a bit different, but most everything in the film is pretty typical of a Disney film. Not that I'm disagreeing, but just interested why.

Also, as a side note, I personally find Cinderella to be the warmest--and most attractive--female protagonist Disney’s had. The only one who competes with her in my eyes is Ariel and, more recently, Rapunzel (for personality only, because I find her design too prepubescent to be “attractive“).

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Lazario wrote:At best, as in Cinderella and Snow White (clearly more fair and better match-ups for this little VS. project than Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty)

The reason I chose to do a 'Cinderella vs. Sleeping Beauty' thread as opposed to a 'Snow White vs. Cinderella' thread was because Big Disney Fan started a 'Snow White vs. Pinocchio' thread beforehand.

A fact you'd think the mighty (mouthed) Goliath could have taken into account when he was pissing over the post I made where I basically said this Vs. thread was a shallow, stupid idea. I should have known it wasn't yours.

So long as it's already been started, why not keep the ball rolling...

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Lazario wrote:And therefore, the best films are usually the most unique ones. As in the case of Fantasia, Dumbo, The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (although we know how important the cutesiness is to that film's success, as opposed to the much harsher Pinocchio and Dumbo), Pinocchio (I didn't mean to short-change that film), Sleeping Beauty, and Alice in Wonderland.

I agree entirely; personally, I'd also add The Great Mouse Detective to that list because of how quirky and original it was.

Ah- I forgot that one.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Lazario wrote:Then, let's look quickly at the two movies' greatest flaws. Sleeping Beauty's Aurora and Cinderella's King. I'm sorry, but isn't an old white heterosexual man complaining that his crazy, wild son won't settle down / shackle into a more conservative, child-bearing royal metaphorical prison lifestyle more annoying than a girl with little personality who yearns to find something to take her away from her boring and uneventual life? Think about it.

The King might have been annoying to you, but to me he was very amusing and so was the Grand Duke; watching their comical antics was a nice variation to all the comedy with the mice and Lucifer.

Oh dear, I see a very bad trend emerging- don't get used to this whole "(So and So) was (this or that) to you." Not when I pose my example as a question. And you avoided it. If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. But, don't try to rub my face in something that I didn't do.

Okay?

Anyway, he's only annoying to me if I'm the wrong mood for him. Which I usually am. Either way, what he is representing, the point of view he is pushing is for a control over someone else's life. That is a very bad message and it does make him an overbearing character. Which is much the same as being annoying. If you don't see him as overbearing, you're working him into something he isn't so you can swallow his routine or aren't paying attention.

There... now you have something to rub my face in.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Lazario wrote:Now, if Cinderella is a stronger heroine than Aurora, why is she (the main character, whereas the fairies are the main characters of Sleeping Beauty) basically trapped in a tower and in need of being rescued? She may have a little more sass, which makes her better, but how is she truly a greater asset to her film if she's basically overruled and caged so many times toward the end of the film? How is that a fantasy any girl wants to be a part of? When disaster strikes, just sit still until help arrives, then go downstairs and put your best slippers on.

Whilst she might not be an ideal role model for little girls, Cinderella is still a much stronger heroine than Aurora in terms of character, as Aurora is generic and bland, and is more-or-less a combination of Snow White and Cinderella.

That wasn't my argument. I recognized that Aurora wasn't made into the main character of her film, therefore her blandness isn't relevant to the film.

And I gave Cinderella credit for being a little sassy (which she was during the "Oh Sing Sweet Nightingale" scene, after Lucifer made a mess on the floor). That's plenty right there. If she's actually as pro-active as people are claiming she is, there's something wrong with the ending to her story resting on the delivery of someone else. Where is her part in securing her own destiny? In fact, she not only has no part in getting it- she actually makes the completely idiotic mistake of sending up the red flag to her evil Stepmother that she was with the Prince, since only the Duke, Stepmother, Prince, and "that woman dancing with the Prince" knew what song was playing during their private dance.

OF COURSE... I know this is done to serve the film's fantasy angle. So, that's why I challenge people every time on their realstic readings of characters like Aurora or pissy reactions to the fairies being the main characters of the movie. SO WHAT?! Did you forget what Cinderella did to its' main heroine? What they had her do to herself? (Yeah, I got some residual hostility on this issue- can anyone blame me?) I would never point this sort of thing out under normal circumstances, but it is plain ridiculous what kind of selective recall certain fans on this board can have when it comes to details of these movies.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The story department didn't just replicate Snow White and bring back Adriana Caselotti, they created an original heroine that was different and had more depth. Yes she mostly relies on the help of others, but she's daring and obviously hard-working.

No argument from me that Cinderella the character is better than Snow White the character. And in fact, I'd go even farther and say that Aurora and the writers of SB have less to answer for than Snow White and that film's story writers. And the fairies are light years ahead of the dwarfs as characters.

Lazario wrote: Something does come to life in that movie through the ambience, atmosphere, and the imagery- which really are characters on their own.

I do agree with this statement and understand where you're coming from by saying this. I see similar thing in the first two Burton Batman movies as well as I said that the scenery or city setting also makes it as characters of there own in a sense. However, that alone isn't enough to what makes a movie fantastic or great. It's part of it, yes, but not fully.

Lazario wrote:And, really, this is why Sleeping Beauty is so remarkable and easily one of Disney's top 5 best animated films ever.

I don't think anyone will argue with this if it's just art and animation wise. that there is definitely true. But again, story and characterization wise, it fell flat.

Lazario wrote:But if we harp too much on the story, it has to be aknowledged how formulaic everything in the films usually are.

Sleeping Beauty is SO formulaic, that it's glaringly obvious. And the story is weak as well so saying that putting emphasis on story makes things very formulaic, is a bunch of bull.

Lazario wrote:And therefore, the best films are usually the most unique ones.

And most of them usually have a well balance of both category of story and art.

Lazario wrote:As in the case of Fantasia, The Rescuers, Pinocchio and Alice in Wonderland. The ones that changed the formula (like Pooh, where there was almost no real suspense) and kept Disney trying new things

with exception of maybe Alice in Wonderland(story-wise), the other three provide both a well layout story direction, characters and art. I don't see that in Sleeping beauty. Only the art.

Lazario wrote:Then, let's look quickly at the two movies' greatest flaws. Sleeping Beauty's Aurora and Cinderella's King.

.........
You seriously compared those two as greatest flaws? Especially the Cinderella King?? Seriously?

Lazario wrote: I'm sorry, but isn't an old white heterosexual man complaining that his crazy, wild son won't settle down / shackle into a more conservative, child-bearing royal metaphorical prison lifestyle more annoying

Funny since Hubert (and to bit lesser extent, Stephen)in Sleeping Beauty was the same way.

Lazario wrote:How is that a fantasy any girl wants to be a part of? When disaster strikes, just sit still until help arrives, then go downstairs and put your best slippers on.

Cinderella is suppose to be a sympathetic character you're suppose to sympathize.

Lazario wrote:That's why I say Disney's characters are never as strong as people let on (alright- 101 Dalmatians is an exception).

WAT?

Lazario wrote: And of course, that's why I say we should all value the animation's luster and the power of the music along with the images. Sleeping Beauty comes out on top in both cases. Hell- the story's stakes are even higher.

No one denying Sleeping Beauty's animation, art and music is fantastic. But again, that alone doesn't make something (movie or so) great