DVDizzy Forum

I KNOW EVERYONE IS TELLING THE JOKES, CHRISTOPHER. JUST BECAUSE I'M HARDLY EVER SOBER AND SUFFERING FROM SLEEP DEPRIVATION DOESN'T MEAN JOKES DO NOT COMPUTE.

SpringHeelJack wrote:I KNOW EVERYONE IS TELLING THE JOKES, CHRISTOPHER. JUST BECAUSE I'M HARDLY EVER SOBER AND SUFFERING FROM SLEEP DEPRIVATION DOESN'T MEAN JOKES DO NOT COMPUTE.

Good stuff Chris. Don't you agree though that what the mice do does always impact the outcome in the story? I agree it should be shortened, but what they do always leads to something, and each time it is important (the first one mainly for Cinderella getting in trouble showing how Cinderella's stepfamily treats her and their relationship development, the rest are self explanatory).

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:And I've read some interpretations on the film as a visual exploration of spiritual themes. None of which ever seemed forcefully Christian to me- so I never took issue with reading people who said Sleeping Beauty actually had a complex view of how spiritualism works.

That's interesting. I usually think Shinto or Native American tribe's beliefs when I think of Spiritualism. I think SB's "spiritualism", if you go by that, is rather easy to grasp and simplistic.

I'm guessing he means spirituality, divinity, reation and afterlife in general. Or Christian spirituality without anything very specific to Christianity. Even though it's known that Phillip's sword has a cross on it for a reason and Maleficent is supposed to be the dragon form of Satan in the St. George and the Dragon that the end fight takes some inspiration from. Maleficent is Satan, and the fairies and Prince Phillip are most definately Jesus saving Aurora who is mankind from death. It's so obviously there.

Super Aurora wrote:Unlike Fantasia, I never got any dictation that the music contribute to filling in story gap. I would assume they used already pre-composed music for the film because the film was already was going be a big budget( it was largest they had in it's time). Why spend more money on making music for the film, when you easily can have already existing music already made (for ballet).

Never thought of it like that but I honestly think Walt intended the music for artistic reasons like Fantasia even though it was decided upon after non-Tchaikovsky-based songs were written ("I Happen to Have a Picture", worst song ever, or maybe that other celebrating song, man they sucked). But that, and a few scenes like the gifts and Aurora being hypnotized, are the only Fantasia-like elements.

Super Aurora wrote:I guess not LOL.
But in all seriousness. If you're saying that Phillip felt unhappy of Herbert's orders. I don't think that was the case. He kinda brush it off and not give a fuck.

I think he meant that the mood of the story is always down and spooky or depressing after Aurora finds out she can't be with Phillip and the raven discovers her. Ehen Phillip has his happy scenes, the mood is not happy because you know he's leaving to be with Aurora but she'll be back at the castle and he won't be happy like Hubert isn't. Everyone's happiness just gets dashed, dashed, dashed. The mood and tone are always unhappy regardless of what the characters feel. I agree with Lazrio on this one.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote:Well, to me she is the scariest evil figure in Disney history. She's less cartoonish than Fantasia's Chernabog and requires no actual religion to believe in.

Since I'm an artist and study anatomy and draw human figure numerous times, I'm going to say your wrong and that Chernabog's muscle mass and anatomy and movement is WAY more realistic than Mally's.

I thought he was pretty whack to say Chernabog was cartoonish in any way.

Super Aurora wrote:but once he made that rape-face, you know shit is gonna get fucking real.

LOL

Lazario wrote:It's not the Queen's fault that Snow White is an idiot.

HOW DAAAAARE YOOOUUUU!!!!!!

lol

Super Aurora wrote:You know, I realize this not to long ago, but all of Malificent's powers and "tricks" are through powers of the staff(just like the with the fairies, it's the small wands). take away of break that staff, and she's nothing.

That's probably not true. Magic wands have historically always been just using something to channel magic. Since they are fairies, they probably can do magic on their own, but prefer to use the wands/are more powerful with them. Cinderella's Fairy Godmother appears without her wand. Anyway, Maleficent made fire appear and then disappeared into it by just waving her hand, not her staff. And the good fairies make themselves big again without waving their wands, they just use the wands to become small.

Super Aurora wrote:That's pretty much only reason has going and what makes a great villain isn't just presence alone. When we first see her, we know she's evil and it tell the audience that she evil just by her colors and appearance along. To me, real evil bastards are the ones that actually look like normal folks which make their deceptions and disguise even more terrifying. Like the Coachman for example.

I wouldn't say it's just her presence. They did a really good characterization of her. Maybe her motive and what she does and accomplishes isn't that great, but her characterization is magnifico.

Super Aurora wrote:

Lazario wrote: Not if what she really cared about was making the kingdom suffer.

I'm pretty sure the kingdom would suffer regardless of what time period (and it's duration it lasted) Aurora is killed. I'd say it's worse as a baby or child as the kingdom now know they will never be able to share a possibly good future with Aurora or a happy future Aurora could of had.

The point of Maleficent's curse was to make her grow up so their gifts to her would be accomplished and she would be beloved...then kill her. She thought it would hurt them more because they would love her more and then she would die. I don't think you can say your theory is better than hers, or that hers is better, it's debatable.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:What do you mean by symbolic topics?

Symbolic themes i meant.

And what do you mean by symbolic themes? A symbol is only as good as what it represents, right? What are you talking about?

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Not always, and only in entertainment (including news or just stories told), and just to most people generally between the ages of 7 and 50.

That's what I'm saying. You should read Dante's Inferno. It pretty much address this point I made. The second part about age I don't get wtf you're trying say there.

With the second part I meant that young kids do not find the evil parts more interesting. They always prefer the brighter happier more pleasant things. Yes there are little execptions but there always are they aren't very extreme just slightly dark things that find fun instead of evil like they're supposed to be. And much older people usually seem to be this way, too. It's like the teens and adults are the ones who like darker stuff, probably because we have to face and deal with and take on dark stuff during those times.

Super Aurora wrote:nah, you just love sweet stuff period. Amazing you didn't end up like Tim.

LOL so true, except Tim purposely wants to be fat and I have a very fast metabolism.

Super Aurora wrote:Just one clear up clarification: "LOL i will give you bad fate to your baby when and what ever I choose! lol"
By that I meant that she could give bad fate or harm to Aurora at any given time she wish or choose and any method she wish or choose. I could be when Aurora was 5yr. It could be she's 10. Or it could be when she's 25. The point i'm making here to Lazario is that this is a much more effective and consistent approach to Lazaro's statement of Kingdom will suffer. The kingdom will will be in constant suffering or paranoia as they won't know when or what she will do to Aurora nor will they have any methods or setbacks to go back to challenge the curse.
As your second part, that point is effective if not for fact that she didn't take in account that she reveal what she brought upon for Aurora in front of everyone where they now know of it and have time to counter it. If she made an announcement like I suggested, it would effectively drive the statement you made as well as being consistent and not make Maleficent look like a fool later on.

Yes, but announcing that she will grow up for a while so that she will be beloved and happy and in her prime of youth until boom death adds to their pain. If she just said she'll do "something", it's actually way too vague for them to get scared enough by. They wouldn't be able to do anything, they would almost give up on bothering or worrying because they don't know anything and they couldn't do anything. The third gift and the fairies hiding Aurora while they pretended to be humans was a very, very clever plan, it's not stupid of her not to expect all of that. The baby still could have been hidden away forever according to your plan, though the question is would they do that. The fairies could then have done something like disguise Aurora to look different than the princess would and just meet the King and Queen in secret. There's always ways around stuff no matter what Maleficent did.

And did you want me to get that joke which references something I don't know about or what?

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Maleficent mentions she is sided with the powers of Hell which is specifically Judeo-Christian, though it could be viewed as hyberbole as Super Aurora did/does, though I think she still has actual association with Hell.

Don't want get this into religious debate, but Hell was not a Judaism concept (Concept of Hell existed before them even). It was mostly christian who put much emphasis on it. Or rather, the concept of Hell is hardly something of focus in Judaism, compared to Christianity. Even Buddhism have concept of Hell as well as Greeks (Taurus).

I kind of knew some of that stuff already, and I say those aren't Hell just things that some people say are earlier versions of Hell because they're similar, though you will probably disagree but you know me and my views, aaaanyway I was referring to how the film uses the actual word Hell, specifically the Christian idea of Hell, and I just thought that Jews do use that word, too.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: it's just not very sense-making.

That is one of the weirdest sentences i've read. You need re-word that better.

"None of it ever makes very much or very good sense."

And thanks for defending me again : )

There is too much to read on here so to be blunt: all three of those Walt-era fairytale films are pretty much the same in how much time is spent with side characters and how underdeveloped the main heroes are. Reason being that Walt's animated features to me weren't so much animated films as they are animated shorts lengthened to feature length (though to be fair was how the majority of all animated films were in the early decades). That's why you have numerous long scenes in Cinderella that are equivalent to multiple Tom and Jerry cartoons. There's a song in Snow White devoted to the dwarfs washing up for dinner...yeah cuz that's relevant to the story. LOL

You have a good point in there, but please do not view his animated features as just longer cartoons, especially when one of them is the first animated feature ever, meaning we wouldn't ever have animated features without it or the others Walt made. He invented it, who's to say how it should be?

Of course, yes, the cat and mice get a little too long in the Tom & Jerry, and the Dwarfs washing is too long as well, but the mice are always showing character relationships or movin the story, getting Cindy in trouble or getting something important for her, and the dwarfs washing their hands show how they change for Snow White, they save her, she betters them, they grow to live with and love each other.

Disney Duster wrote:Good stuff Chris. Don't you agree though that what the mice do does always impact the outcome in the story? I agree it should be shortened, but what they do always leads to something, and each time it is important (the first one mainly for Cinderella getting in trouble showing how Cinderella's stepfamily treats her and their relationship development, the rest are self explanatory).

Some points the mice impact to the story but not always.

Disney Duster wrote:I think he meant that the mood of the story is always down and spooky or depressing after Aurora finds out she can't be with Phillip and the raven discovers her. Ehen Phillip has his happy scenes, the mood is not happy because you know he's leaving to be with Aurora but she'll be back at the castle and he won't be happy like Hubert isn't. Everyone's happiness just gets dashed, dashed, dashed. The mood and tone are always unhappy regardless of what the characters feel. I agree with Lazario on this one.

I can kinda see that now. Though I never thought SB as a dark sad depressing film. but I think Pinnocchio succeed in those areas Lazario is saying about SB.

Disney Duster wrote: That's probably not true. Magic wands have historically always been just using something to channel magic.

That's why I said take the staff away and she's useless. She can only channel her magic through the staff.
And why you say historically? Magic wands aren't real and have no real life history lol.

Since they are fairies, they probably can do magic on their own, but prefer to use the wands/are more powerful with them. Anyway, Maleficent made fire appear and then disappeared into it by just waving her hand, not her staff. And the good fairies make themselves big again without waving their wands, they just use the wands to become small.[/quote]
She had the staff with her. There wasn't an instance where she use magic from her hands or mind. It was all channel through the staff. Even the curse was through it. That's why I said that without the staff or wand, the fairies and Mally are hopeless without them.

And the fairies need the the wand to make them big. When the three were coming out of the gold locket thing, Flora took the other two's wands and left turning herself big, but Merriweather and Fuana couldn't do it cause they didn't have their wands with them. Also I believe Merriweather pointed out when they were going to bake the cake and make the dress(or was it when they decided to take care of the baby?) that they never done anything without their wands. other wise the cooking and dress making would of been easy for them.

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:That's pretty much only reason has going and what makes a great villain isn't just presence alone. When we first see her, we know she's evil and it tell the audience that she evil just by her colors and appearance along. To me, real evil bastards are the ones that actually look like normal folks which make their deceptions and disguise even more terrifying. Like the Coachman for example.

I wouldn't say it's just her presence. They did a really good characterization of her. Maybe her motive and what she does and accomplishes isn't that great, but her characterization is magnifico.

I wouldn't say Characterization is the word that highlight her. I think it's her personality that is which I do agree with too. An example of good characterization of a Disney Villain would be Frollo. Maleficent doesn't have the same match up on characterization and development as Frollo's did.

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: I'm pretty sure the kingdom would suffer regardless of what time period (and it's duration it lasted) Aurora is killed. I'd say it's worse as a baby or child as the kingdom now know they will never be able to share a possibly good future with Aurora or a happy future Aurora could of had.

The point of Maleficent's curse was to make her grow up so their gifts to her would be accomplished and she would be beloved...then kill her. She thought it would hurt them more because they would love her more and then she would die. I don't think you can say your theory is better than hers, or that hers is better, it's debatable.

My example was trying to show a way for her fulfill the curse without any setback for good guys to counter. My example was to give away for her to have them fear the unknown with the vague descriptions. In the movie the curse was really specific going far as say that it will happen on sunset. Had she give a vague and unknown announcement, the people will be in more fear and panic as they have no way of knowing when or where or how or what the curse will be. The specific curse in the movie gave the good guys an easier setback to counter on. As the movie later says, she was the one who went into wrath and frustration rather than the towns people/ kingdom. What she did in the movie didn't put the people in sad or terrifying years, but instead got herself in panic and desperation. Thus making her curse seem rather insignificant and pointless to begin with.

Disney Duster wrote: With the second part I meant that young kids do not find the evil parts more interesting. They always prefer the brighter happier more pleasant things. Yes there are little exceptions but there always are they aren't very extreme just slightly dark things that find fun instead of evil like they're supposed to be.

Of course it depends in the vary degree and contents of the evil which kids may like. For example, the demons and evil stuff in Berserk, a kid would NOT really like or attach to(would be terrified since the series not for kids to begin with.), but some one in a more light-er heart cartoon like Disney movies, i'd say kids would probably enjoy or like the villains/evil.

Disney Duster wrote:And much older people usually seem to be this way, too.

this I never heard of but I also wouldn't be surprise by either.

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:Just one clear up clarification: "LOL i will give you bad fate to your baby when and what ever I choose! lol"
By that I meant that she could give bad fate or harm to Aurora at any given time she wish or choose and any method she wish or choose. I could be when Aurora was 5yr. It could be she's 10. Or it could be when she's 25. The point i'm making here to Lazario is that this is a much more effective and consistent approach to Lazaro's statement of Kingdom will suffer. The kingdom will will be in constant suffering or paranoia as they won't know when or what she will do to Aurora nor will they have any methods or setbacks to go back to challenge the curse.
As your second part, that point is effective if not for fact that she didn't take in account that she reveal what she brought upon for Aurora in front of everyone where they now know of it and have time to counter it. If she made an announcement like I suggested, it would effectively drive the statement you made as well as being consistent and not make Maleficent look like a fool later on.

Yes, but announcing that she will grow up for a while so that she will be beloved and happy and in her prime of youth until boom death adds to their pain.

Except that the kingdom will still be to worry about trying to resolve and way around the curse. They wouldn't be in a happy happy time anyway since they're too worry about Aurora safety and future. I'd would think her death at much earlier age is more impacting for the kingdom.

Disney Duster wrote:If she just said she'll do "something", it's actually way too vague for them to get scared enough by.They wouldn't be able to do anything, they would almost give up on bothering or worrying because they don't know anything and they couldn't do anything.

Actually they be more afraid if it was much more vague. Ever heard the saying "fear the unknown" or "You fear what you can't not control or know."? The uncertainty creates a much bigger impact and stress to the kingdom.

I don't think they'd give up or give up bothering about it. That would indicate that Aurora's life and safety isn't that important. Which you know is fault as the opening indicate how much of an enjoyment the baby is to the kingdom.

Disney Duster wrote:The third gift and the fairies hiding Aurora while they pretended to be humans was a very, very clever plan, it's not stupid of her not to expect all of that.

Not counting what fauna said afterwards, but Merriweather stated specifically that Mally "Knows everything." that could be an exaggeration or such but I think she should be clever enough thought out her curse better.

Disney Duster wrote:And did you want me to get that joke which references something I don't know about or what?

No I didn't and good thing you didn't. Only Pap64 and Big One would get them.

Disney Duster wrote:And thanks for defending me again : )

I did?

Super Aurora wrote:Some points the mice impact to the story but not always.

They impact by first showing they are her friends so she has something to make her happy and help her, later when they get breakfast it shows how she takes care of and does things for them, then they get her in trouble which shows her relationship with her stepfamily. Then they get her humor with her sarcasm about her stepsisters and root for her when she says she should go to the ball, then they figure out how to help her for the ball with her dress, and we have to see them get the stepsisters things so the stepsisters rip the dress by taking those things back. Then they have to see what the stepmother does and then free her with the key. There's only a few little moments in there of some cat and mice chasing or other seconds of the mice that could be cut.

Super Aurora wrote:Though I never thought SB as a dark sad depressing film.

Yea, I would say it's not dark and depressing...well actually, it is dark, it is the darkest Disney princess fairy tale.

Super Aurora wrote:That's why I said take the staff away and she's useless. She can only channel her magic through the staff.
And why you say historically? Magic wands aren't real and have no real life history lol.

Magic wands in fiction are based on real life magic wands. You know, paganism, wicca, witchcraft, those kinds of things used magic wands. Did the wands actually work? Well who the heck knows, but magic wands were real in that people made and believed in them and there was a way they were supposed to work which was just to channel magic, it wasn't that they believed wands were their only source of power. Channeling magic just means to better control and aim it or make it stronger. Maybe they needed wands to do certain things, but it wasn't all they needed for every magic or the only way to do it.

Super Aurora wrote:She had the staff with her. There wasn't an instance where she use magic from her hands or mind. It was all channel through the staff. Even the curse was through it. That's why I said that without the staff or wand, the fairies and Mally are hopeless without them.

If you watch it, she waves her hand. She had the staff with her but there's no proof she needed her staff for that time. She didn't need to keep the staff when she was a dragon. She must have planned to turn back at somepoint, she would have had to make her staff appear again by herself, or just transform back by herself. And I just meant that the staff channels her own magic that she has in her, like I think the fairies also do.

Super Aurora wrote:And the fairies need the the wand to make them big. When the three were coming out of the gold locket thing, Flora took the other two's wands and left turning herself big, but Merriweather and Fuana couldn't do it cause they didn't have their wands with them. Also I believe Merriweather pointed out when they were going to bake the cake and make the dress(or was it when they decided to take care of the baby?) that they never done anything without their wands. other wise the cooking and dress making would of been easy for them.

Oh, yea you're right that in that scene they did need the wands. Well, when they wanted to sew and cook she said they had never done those things before, but when they first made their plan to take care of the baby Merryweather said they had never done anything without "magic", she didn't say "wands", but it does look like everytime they perform magic they need their wands. I think that they just use them to make their magic stronger, because they're fairies with wings and all that, but there's nothing to prove they can do magic without the wands so you could be right too, I just don't think they would purposely make fairies unable to do magic without wands.

Super Aurora wrote:I wouldn't say Characterization is the word that highlight her. I think it's her personality that is which I do agree with too. An example of good characterization of a Disney Villain would be Frollo. Maleficent doesn't have the same match up on characterization and development as Frollo's did.

I thought characterization was voice, acting, animation, design, presence, lines, actions, everything other than her motive and her success in getting what she wants, basically everything other than the bad or weak things people point out in her lol. Like maybe on paper she doesn't sound like a great villain but what you see on screen is great, that's what I mean by characterization. What is the right word? Dictionary.com says characterization is a created portrayal or representation of a fictitious character. That sounds like what I mean.

Super Aurora wrote:In the movie the curse was really specific going far as say that it will happen on sunset.

She said before the sun sets. That means any time before sunset, which helps with the spooky fear of the unknown you're talking about. All that is known is that the princess will grow up and become beloved...but sometime before sunset when she's 16, she would die by pricking herself.

Super Aurora wrote:As the movie later says, she was the one who went into wrath and frustration rather than the towns people/ kingdom. What she did in the movie didn't put the people in sad or terrifying years, but instead got herself in panic and desperation. Thus making her curse seem rather insignificant and pointless to begin with.

You don't also remember the movie also said the kingdom did have long and lonely years? I had a problem with this, but not because the curse was too specific, but because I didn't see why the kingdom would be that sad and lonely over it. I can think that whenever they thought about it they were sad, but I doubt real people would think about it that much except the king and queen because it's their only child.

Disney Duster wrote:Of course it depends in the vary degree and contents of the evil which kids may like. For example, the demons and evil stuff in Berserk, a kid would NOT really like or attach to(would be terrified since the series not for kids to begin with.), but some one in a more light-er heart cartoon like Disney movies, I'd say kids would probably enjoy or like the villains/evil.

Well I know very young kids can only take certain Disney movies. Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and The Little Mermaid for instance are usually too scary for the very young kids, like until they're 5. Pinocchio and Fantasia are probably some too, I just hear about those less. I wouldn't let my kid watch Bambi until 5 or 6 either.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Yes, but announcing that she will grow up for a while so that she will be beloved and happy and in her prime of youth until boom death adds to their pain.

Except that the kingdom will still be to worry about trying to resolve and way around the curse. They wouldn't be in a happy happy time anyway since they're too worry about Aurora safety and future. I'd would think her death at much earlier age is more impacting for the kingdom.

Um...just a little earlier you said the kingdom wouldn't be worried about the curse Maleficent places that talks about the spinning wheel at 16.

Disney Duster wrote:If she just said she'll do "something", it's actually way too vague for them to get scared enough by.They wouldn't be able to do anything, they would almost give up on bothering or worrying because they don't know anything and they couldn't do anything.

Actually they be more afraid if it was much more vague. Ever heard the saying "fear the unknown" or "You fear what you can't not control or know."? The uncertainty creates a much bigger impact and stress to the kingdom.

I don't think they'd give up or give up bothering about it. That would indicate that Aurora's life and safety isn't that important. Which you know is fault as the opening indicate how much of an enjoyment the baby is to the kingdom.[/quote]
That is all a fair view with some good points, but what I mean is that if they knew something would happen to her and they didn't know what or when, then they couldn't do anything, so they would worry but just try to enjoy their time anyway because their was nothing they could do so their was no point in worrying, they would still worry, but try to enjoy their time anyway.

And I already pointed out how the fairies could simply take the child away even after your idea for what Maleficent should do, and change not only their but also the child's appearence, and maybe even disguise the King and Queen for a little bit too, to go visit their child in secret. Or they could hide her until they figure out a way to kill Maleficent. There's all sorts of things the fairies could come up with to counter Maleficent. Maleficent's original plan is good enough. I can see why you think yours is better but it's not like I don't think Maleficent's is good at all or a big fail.

Super Aurora wrote:Not counting what Fauna said afterwards, but Merriweather stated specifically that Mally "Knows everything." that could be an exaggeration or such but I think she should be clever enough thought out her curse better.

Yea but you do have to count what Fauna says later, and the rest of what the fairies say. Maleficent expected they would do something like change Aurora into a flower. What she didn't expect was a huge, huge sacrifice on their part to act mortal for 16 years. It was a good plan. And it is unbelievable that Merryweather would literally mean Maleficent knows everything. If that was the case, Maleficent would be like God and there'd be absolutely know way to defeat her except by being really fast that she has little time to think or throwing a bunch of things at her at once or something. It would be pretty much impossible to defeat her and she'd actually kind of be a boring and unrealistic villain if she was so omnipotent no one could do anything to her. She's supposed to have very, very great power...bu not be like God.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:And did you want me to get that joke which references something I don't know about or what?

No I didn't and good thing you didn't. Only Pap64 and Big One would get them.

Great. Now I'm curious. Well if you don't want me to know, that's alright.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:And thanks for defending me again : )

I did?

Yea in the very last thing you said. Maybe I should give up on thinking you ever purposely try to do anything like that for me.

You know what, when watching Cinderella again I think the mice did take up too much time. And maybe Lazario was right that all Walt princesses are bland and what's important is having a cohesive narrative that's always entertaining or beautiful which Sleeping Beauty is.

So I'm going to say it. I now agree with Lazario and Dr Frankenollie on their points about the mice taking up too much time and their being too much blandness for Cinderella to be better than either of these films. Sleeping Beauty's fairies just fit better as the characters that hog up the time as opposed to the mice, they are better. And Snow White and Sleeping Beauty's scores are better.

So now, regretfully and sadly, I will say the best one is Snow White with the dwarfs always being entertaining or importantly character building, then comes Sleeping Beauty with it's beauty wowing us during the whole film, and then comes Cinderella. It's still my favorite, but I no longer think it's better than...well at least its not better than Snow White. Maybe the character building and heartwarmingness is still better than Sleeping Beauty. I don't know. Maybe I'm too depressed to view the happiness and greatness of the film properly now. :/

I personally thought that Cinderella was by far the weakest of all the three movies. It had been a LOOOOONG time since I had seen Cinderella, so when I bought the Blu-Ray I felt like I was a blank slate for my opinion on the movie. But I thought it was just way too lackluster. No offense to those who like the movie, but it seems shocking that this film is what saved the studio after a few feature disappointments from the prior years.

There's just so little story and character present here at all. I think the only part I genuinely enjoyed is when she danced with the Prince. The animation, emotion and atmosphere was just wonderful, but the rest of the film just had too much dead space for me. Not one of Disney's stronger efforts.

^Funny, I did that with Lion King and Tarzan.

So far, only Hunchback and Atlantis have held up.

I'm sure Snow White wouldn't though. Even thinking about it. She's such a useless character.

BK wrote: Even thinking about it. She's such a useless character.

Snow White isn't useless. Naive and innocent yes. But not useless.

And I wouldn't say that Cinderella has little character though. Aside from the fairies, Cinderella has more character in all of its players than Sleeping Beauty does. Character is the one place where Cinderella wins, aside from also its heart and emotion. I am just starting to think though that none of those are enough to make it better than the other Walt fairy tale films.