DVDizzy Forum

I agree that the animation and music in Sleeping Beauty is better than the animation and music in CInderella, although I like a the actual songs in Cinderella better than those in Sleeping Beauty minus "Once Upon A Dream". But in terms of story Cinderella just wins. It helps that the overall plot in Cinderella is easier to translat into a movie as oppossed to Sleeping Beauty's plot.

Although I think the fairies are more fun to watch than the mice.

Super Aurora wrote:

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.

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.

SuperA - I said (did you miss it?) that the film's artistic / stylistic elements are meant to be a kind of living character and tell much of the film's story by themselves. That means they become the story and characterization. Working with the speaking characters and actually informing their actions.

Therefore, how in my argument (my argument = my opinion) are the story and characterization lacking / flat? Do you see what I'm getting at? There are times when the ambience / atmosphere takes over for the characters who have names. Therefore, the characters we see aren't acting in only one strict pattern which seems apparent. That's part of what makes the film so epic. I started to say last year, when I was rudely interrupted and told I was imagining things (I'm sorry- NO ONE has any right to say that EVER; it wasn't you SuperA), this movie really is about a kind of invisible playing field of good and evil. The good is basically represented by the human form of the various characters, all trying to do what they see as right and basically deliver the princess to the castle as a gesture of fate at a safe moment. And the evil is set-up as a presence that hangs everywhere, potentially sensing everything everyone is planning (which only requires them to be extra careful in conceiling the parts of their true identities that might give them away - Aurora's hair and singing voice, the fairies' wands). Almost all the human characters are treated as pawns in the games with their specific guardians- those characters are just about the only ones for which its' important that they are well-defined. The fairies and Maleficent. I'm saying it doesn't matter that the royal figures are not great characters. I agree, they aren't. But it doesn't matter. The film is not operating in the same way as typical Disney formula and therefore, the typical story elements can't be judged as you may judge Cinderella, Snow White, etc.

Super Aurora wrote:

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.

Not really.

Super Aurora wrote:

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)

If it bothers people so much that most of Alice in Wonderland shows the character being annoyed by quirky characters singing and behaving by their own rules which don't fit a traditional Disney story, in the immortal words of Kanga:

"Aw, what a shame... That's too bad."

Super Aurora wrote:the other three provide both a well layout story direction, characters and art. I don't see that in Sleeping beauty. Only the art.

That's true, you don't see what I see in the movie. I believe that's all you have established in the course of this particular reply.

Super Aurora wrote:

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?

Why don't you try READING the rest of my posts (I elaborated on this further in my last reply to Frankenollie). You may understand.

Super Aurora wrote:

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.

I already addressed this above. To add; I consider the strength of this movie to be more in the essence of the story, not as much in the apparent details. In the meantime, the story with Hubert and Stefan (I think that's the right spelling) is flawed for the same reason. That's why you can't follow the same story you believe is the real story this movie is focusing on. However, during the scenes of them planning the wedding, Hubert emotionally bends with Phillip's story- Phillip who actually stands up for himself (BY THE WAY!) as opposed to Cinderella's robotic prince who just lets his father run his life- telling Hubert that he will not be running his life for him, and the tone of the film is running with the atmosphere. The story isn't resting on the outcome and main points of the two kings' conversation, it's on the implications of how they will affect the other characters by Hubert believing Aurora will be delivered to them safe and sound while Stefan is worried that something could go wrong. Later, Phillip comes in and is either completely unaware or uncaring that Maleficent exists and that he is involved in her plan. The Kings should know this- that Phillip is involved in her plan. But their ignorance / emotion informs the tone of the next scene. Basically, their hopefulness deflated (collectively) acting with what they are not aware of is the seed which allows the evil in the next scene to thrive. It's a chain: they push the tone which pushed them first, the atmosphere reacts and the evil is stirred up.

In the metaphor I made in the post from last year I referenced above, I mentioned that the characters in this film are like pieces on a chess board, tripping off censors. It's a highly mystical film and I firmly believe this is the outfit it was given. It's not so simple as: Two Kings Force Girl to Marry Boy, Evil Sorceress Bitch Wants to Ruin Everything. If it was, the film would have been sappier. The (now controversial, I imagine) "Hail Aurora" musical number would have had a happier tone rather than a grave and sullen one. There is great substance in all the sequences people like you are complaining have none. You just have to see it as part of the film's calculating game of good and evil. If the story had been about the characters simply acting out the cliches, given that this is Disney we're talking about, the film would have been a lot more formulaic- in every way.

Instead, the film has a remarkable tone throughout that suggests its' story is more than just showing characters going through the same motions we've already seen in previous Disney films with a slight tweak here and there. Here- everything is measured out differently. This is a rare film that doesn't beat us over the head with everything in its' arsenal, as most of Disney's previous films have. You just have to be open to it yourself to seeing it. You don't even have to like it yet, just try to see it in a different way.

Super Aurora wrote:

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.

And in certain moments, I do. But not through most of the movie. Because the film's treatment of her as a character doesn't require her to be proactive. JUST LIKE Aurora. Nothing she does brings about her happy ending. Not really- only in the formula. The film barely even has a story. It's formula. The song sets up the yearning for her dream to come true and that's what makes it come true. Not her hard work or faith.

Super Aurora wrote:

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?

I believe I said before that sentence that I was refering to human characters. I believe the characters in 101 Dalmatians to be the best human characters in Disney's animated films. And even then, I'm only saying that for a Disney film, they're strong human characters. Might not stand up so well without that context.

Super Aurora wrote:

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

You took me out of context- even in that post you're quoting I explained before that section you're quoting that I'm referring to the art / style and music of the film to be more than just part of the story. They themselves are characters- who did you think Flora was suggesting was listening to them when she said "even walls have ears"? If she had been refering to one of Maleficent's ghouls, someone in the castle would have seen them walking around. And they weren't just talking about the raven/crow.

Jay wrote:It helps that the overall plot in Cinderella is easier to translat into a movie as oppossed to Sleeping Beauty's plot.

THANK YOU!

That's exactly what I'm saying! People aren't failing to get into Sleeping Beauty because it doesn't work, it's because it's not a traditional story. In fact, it is more of a plot.

Lazario wrote: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.

Wait, wait... You pissed all over Frankenollie's threads (multiple threads, yes, you said the whole "series" was stupid and unproductive) and trashed them for no reason at all (if you don't like them, stay out of them), and now I'm the bad guy?

After reading bit through, I see what you’re saying now, but I still don’t see it at all in Sleeping Beauty.

Lazario wrote:SuperA - I said (did you miss it?) that the film's artistic / stylistic elements are meant to be a kind of living character and tell much of the film's story by themselves. That means they become the story and characterization. Working with the speaking characters and actually informing their actions.

I now know what you’re talking about but as I said above, I don’t see it at all in Sleeping Beauty, and if what you say is true, to me it doesn’t seems to pull it off well either.

Lazario wrote:Therefore, how in my argument (my argument = my opinion) are the story and characterization lacking / flat?

We find the story and the characterization weak.

Lazario wrote:Do you see what I'm getting at? There are times when the ambience / atmosphere takes over for the characters who have names.

I see what your getting at. Again, did doesn’t make the film a fantastic one by doing that, and that this film doesn’t seems to have handle it well.

Lazario wrote:Therefore, the characters we see aren't acting in only one strict pattern which seems apparent.

It seems pretty apparent of the pattern what the characters we see are acting.

Lazario wrote:this movie really is about a kind of invisible playing field of good and evil.

No way is the good vs evil symbolic playing field was invisible. It was so clear first time I watch it: The fairies vs Malificant. Fairies represent good morals and Mally is evil morals. It felt practically shoved in my face too. This is why you hear me bad-mouth the fairies so much.

Lazario wrote:Almost all the human characters are treated as pawns in the games with their specific guardians- those characters are just about the only ones for which its' important that they are well-defined. The fairies and Maleficent. I'm saying it doesn't matter that the royal figures are not great characters. I agree, they aren't. But it doesn't matter.

That’s main point most of us have a problem with in this movie. Most of reason I explain in paragraph above, but also it is very misleading from what the main title and cover lead you to believe.

When I first watch this movie and from initially looking at the cassette box I thought I would expect the story focus would be filled by those three main characters: Aurora, Phillip, and Mally. Mally filled her’s which also felt two dimension and cliché, but the other two felt they got the shaft. Even if Aurora’s role had to be minimum, that was no excuse with Phillip, especially in the final battle. When you saw that the fairies really took over Phillip’s role in final battle, by then you knew right off what this movie really about: A chess game between Mally and the fairies- as you put it- and an obvious display of good vs. evil plot like all other Disney movies. Only to me this one felt like an obnoxious tease by sheer fact that it uses the fairies as really the characters of good as oppose to Aurora or Phillip. And that they shove their good moral ethnic down my throat.

If I had to say something that really succeed in pulling off like what you’re trying to say for fairies and Mally, it would be Bleach. Although it’s a on-going series, it pulls it off better than what was, apparently to you, for Sleeping Beauty.

Lazario wrote:The film is not operating in the same way as typical Disney formula and therefore, the typical story elements can't be judged as you may judge Cinderella, Snow White, etc.

I can’t not see how you don’t see Sleeping Beauty is operating the same way as the typical Disney movie forumula. If anything this movie is actually the movie that cements the very thing you say Sleeping Beauty isn’t as.

Lazario wrote:If it bothers people so much that most of Alice in Wonderland shows the character being annoyed by quirky characters singing and behaving by their own rules which don't fit a traditional Disney story, in the immortal words of Kanga:

"Aw, what a shame... That's too bad."

No one is bother by it and you are twisting the wrong way and you know it. In that sentence, I was basically guessing that the story in Alice and wonderland isn’t as strong compare to the other three I listed.

Lazario wrote:Why don't you try READING the rest of my posts (I elaborated on this further in my last reply to Frankenollie). You may understand.

my previous post was being typed when that post was posted. I didn’t see the post until after I post my post. I was too lazy go back and read it then edit any thing else on it.

Lazario wrote:I already addressed this above. To add; I consider the strength of this movie to be more in the essence of the story, not as much in the apparent details. In the meantime, the story with Hubert and Stefan (I think that's the right spelling) is flawed for the same reason. That's why you can't follow the same story you believe is the real story this movie is focusing on. However, during the scenes of them planning the wedding, Hubert emotionally bends with Phillip's story- Phillip who actually stands up for himself (BY THE WAY!) as opposed to Cinderella's robotic prince who just lets his father run his life- telling Hubert that he will not be running his life for him, and the tone of the film is running with the atmosphere. The story isn't resting on the outcome and main points of the two kings' conversation, it's on the implications of how they will affect the other characters by Hubert believing Aurora will be delivered to them safe and sound while Stefan is worried that something could go wrong.

I’m well aware of all that.

All I did was point out the irony that you found the King in Cinderella as it’s biggest flaw, yet the Kings in Sleeping beauty had a similar trait as well which apparently didn’t seems like it’s biggest flaw to you.

In other words, when I read it, it came out wrong and didn’t make sense.

Lazario wrote:Later, Phillip comes in and is either completely unaware or uncaring that Maleficent exists and that he is involved in her plan.

No way was he unaware that Maleficent exists. He was practically there at the birth ceremony of Aurora’s.

Lazario wrote:It's not so simple as: Two Kings Force Girl to Marry Boy, Evil Sorceress Bitch Wants to Ruin Everything.

When you break it all down, yes it is. The last part is even more apparent due to sheer fact that despite Mally’s unbreakable curse, she goes crazy over the 16 years and tries to find/ fuck with Aurora anyway.

Lazario wrote:If the story had been about the characters simply acting out the cliches, given that this is Disney we're talking about, the film would have been a lot more formulaic- in every way.

This movie really was playing out it’s cliché. Mally and fairies , the ones you champion as underlying “true characters in game of chess”, have shown it more than once how obvious it is.

Lazario wrote:This is a rare film that doesn't beat us over the head with everything in its' arsenal, as most of Disney's previous films have.

Actually it does and the fairies give the impression to you quite clearly. Which is why I found them obnoxious in their moral lecturing.

Lazario wrote:You don't even have to like it yet, just try to see it in a different way.

I tried many times. It still come out same way I always saw it. Grant I don’t hate the film. Don’t get me wrong there. But I don’t see it as “HOLY SHIT WTF AWESOME” as you do.

Lazario wrote:I believe I said before that sentence that I was refering to human characters. I believe the characters in 101 Dalmatians to be the best human characters in Disney's animated films. And even then, I'm only saying that for a Disney film, they're strong human characters. Might not stand up so well without that context.

I was referring to the human characters.
I was going wtf at this:

That's why I say Disney's characters are never as strong as people let on

Not this:

(alright- 101 Dalmatians is an exception).

Lazario wrote:You took me out of context- even in that post you're quoting I explained before that section you're quoting that I'm referring to the art / style and music of the film to be more than just part of the story. They themselves are characters-

I can see that you were saying that. I’m saying that it’s not enough to make it what you find it as: Well made movie. The art/ style you are saying can only get you so far for a movie.

Lazario wrote:who did you think Flora was suggesting was listening to them when she said "even walls have ears"

Maleficent . That was pretty obvious. And became even more so when she appear from the chimney hearth for Aurora.

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

How so?

Flanger-Hanger wrote:

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

How so?

The other princesses have a physical attribute that sets them apart from each other, as well as from the characters in their worlds. Snow White is hailed for ebony hair, rose lips and white skin (even though everyone in the film is white). Aurora for her golden locks. Ariel's noticably red hair was the most lush of all of Triton's daughters. In fact, most of the other princesses can be distinguished for their hair.

Cinderella, it's hard to tell. The only probable thing that distinctly makes her "pretty" is her small feet. (Before I go any further, this does NOT pertain to any hidden foot fetish. Have your fun with Rapunzel. )
Ignoring the fact that her toes are mudded together from some weird reason, her small feet are somehow the only ones that could fit the glass slippers, despite the gaping plot hole brought up in the film, and serve as an immediate and more "feminine" contrast to her stepsisters' noticeably large feet.
But no attention is brought to Cinderella's amber hair (the products that make her blonde can suck it), or her blue eyes. She was already established as pretty even without the silver ball gown. So what exactly was it that made her stand out from the other women? What really drew the Prince to Cinderella?

It's never made clear beyond what the plot dictates.

Semaj wrote:So what exactly was it that made her stand out from the other women? What really drew the Prince to Cinderella?

Her tits and fine ass.

Super Aurora wrote:

Semaj wrote:So what exactly was it that made her stand out from the other women? What really drew the Prince to Cinderella?

Her tits and fine ass.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qpQSvlPDZw8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Semaj wrote:So what exactly was it that made her stand out from the other women? What really drew the Prince to Cinderella?

Well her dress was designed to be "simple, but daring too." so maybe its design on that body caught his attention? Or the sparkles?

I think Cinderella is the most regal out of all the Disney royal heroines. When one thinks of how a queen consort should behave, I think Cinderella (and Belle I guess) comes to mind. Like the song says, she's as lovely as her name, she's a sunset in a frame. Though she's dressed in rags, she wears an air of queenly grace. Anyone can see a throne would be her proper place. To me, Cinderella is to Grace Kelly as Belle is to Kate Middleton.

In the merchandise Cinderella has become almost Barbie-like with her bleach blonde hair and her big blue eyes and blue dress. In the original film she has reddish-brown hair and her dress is a silvery/white color. I think Cinderella in the film is one of the most gorgeous princesses but in the merchandise she has a very generic look.

tsom wrote:I think Cinderella is the most regal out of all the Disney royal heroines. When one thinks of how a queen consort should behave, I think Cinderella (and Belle I guess) comes to mind. Like the song says, she's as lovely as her name, she's a sunset in a frame. Though she's dressed in rags, she wears an air of queenly grace.

That’s one of the lines that always stick with me when I watch Cinderella, too. Cinderella is a very composed character/heroine. I’ve always found her demeanor a very likable trait, for some reason. I think part of the reason I find it admirable is because it is very regal--it’s the same characteristic Tremaine, another stoic character, exudes.

(A somewhat off-topic aside: I know there’s issue that she’s too passive, and there’s a substantial argument to support that, but I believe she looks at life in a very “Christian” way (not to get religious)--because Christians often look at life as something which you should rise above/not respond to, aka passivity.* Of course, it is a choice--though a rather empty one--to not act, but it can sometimes be admired. I think the problem here is they pin that all onto a female character.

I only bring the religion into it because that certainly does reflect some of Disney’s portrayals, especially in Walt’s days, because they were films made by a largely Christian crew to pander to a dominant, Christian audience. And then, of course, there’s the obvious: “Lucifer.” I only bring religion into it when I believe it actually relates to the film, in the same way that I would discuss a book in relation to the author’s beliefs/intentions or the audience they were writing to.

*Interestingly, most religions are similar in that they encourage “passivity,“ which might go along with the whole idea that religion is a way to control the masses.)

I can certainly defend Cinderella's passive nature. Cinderella believes in turning the other cheek when someone hurts you. She believes that everyone has good in them, even her stepfamily. Remember the scene where she tries to defend Lucifer to Bruno? That's just her nature. In this day and age, you are seen as weak if you constantly let people belittle you, but I don't believe in that. I think Cinderella just kills people with kindness, which pisses Lady Tremaine off even more. Though it was never stated in the film, I think there are several reasons as to why Cinderella stayed as a servant. For one, the chateau was her father's and she couldn't leave it in the hands of her stepfamily, who didn't take care of it at all. Two, in Cinderella's time, there weren't a lot of choices for women, especially commoners. Where would she go? What would she do? Therefore, it was better for her to stay at the chateau even as a servant. Three, I think she truly thought if she did everything she was told, her stepmother would appreciate and love her like a daughter. In the end, this was not the case.

Furthermore, Cinderella didn't wait for a prince to rescue her. She actually went to get him. I don't think Cinderella ever thought about landing a prince. She wanted to attend the ball just to have a nice time. Marrying the prince in the end was just an added bonus.

Moreover, Cinderella was human. She somtimes complained about her lot in life; she stood up to her stepfamily multiple times; she even talked shyt about them as well. She had flaws, but she was still human.

With the whole merchandise, I disagree. I think the other princesses look artifical as well in their doll forms. But, that's just me.

tsom wrote:With the whole merchandise, I disagree. I think the other princesses look artifical as well in their doll forms. But, that's just me.

They all look awful in that propduct line compared to thier film forms, but Cinderella the most.

Semaj wrote:The other princesses have a physical attribute that sets them apart from each other, as well as from the characters in their worlds. [...] Cinderella, it's hard to tell. The only probable thing that distinctly makes her "pretty" is her small feet. [...]

Ignoring the fact that her toes are mudded together from some weird reason, her small feet are somehow the only ones that could fit the glass slippers, despite the gaping plot hole brought up in the film, and serve as an immediate and more "feminine" contrast to her stepsisters' noticeably large feet. [...] So what exactly was it that made her stand out from the other women? What really drew the Prince to Cinderella?

It's never made clear beyond what the plot dictates.

Very well-said. I always felt the same, yet I couldn't put it into words. Not that I don't like the character; she's the one you automatically root for when watching. But what sets her apart from other princesses? Even disregarding the hideous Princess merchandise and focusing only on the movie's portrayal, I can't answer it. But I have always thought the same about Aurora. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I'm more into brunettes, redheads or long black hair than into blondes?

About the "gaping plothole" you mentioned: what did you mean by that?

Semaj wrote:So what exactly was it that made her stand out from the other women? What really drew the Prince to Cinderella?

Cinderella caught his attention because she was the only girl at the ball not flaunting herself at him. Unlike other versions of the story, she's not concerned with nabbing herself a man. She simply wants a fun night out. That's why she seems more concerned at gawking at the pretty castle architecture than she is throwing herself at a prospective husband. I think her humility and sincerity were what caught the Prince's attention first, and of course then when he got closer, he noticed how hot she is.

And yes, I do think Cinderella's gorgeous, the most gorgeous Disney heroine Disney's animated. I've never understood criticisms that she's bland-looking and indistinctive (even Roger Ebert has said this). Her animation is subtle, more subtle than any other human Disney's done, in my opinion save for perhaps Alice. Little flickers of her eye or slight changes in her mouth (like when Tremaine approaches her about the necklace and you see her mouth open just slightly enough to show her front teeth) are very understated and believable. I don't find her stiff at all.

Her looks work both as girl-next-door-charm...



and refined elegance...



I can't stand the way Disney depicts her in merchandise and clipart what with the bleach-blonde hair, overdone makeup, and bold blue dress. The Cinderella as depicted in the film has such a natural design to her. She's not glamorously beautiful; she's realistically beautiful. Just like Snow White was for the 30s, Cinderella has a very 50s ideal of feminine beauty (auburn was a very popular hair color at that time, afterall).

It's funny people keep saying Cinderella is sort of the textbook example of queenly grace because I don't quite see it. When I think of the Disney princess with the most regal countenance, I think of Aurora and how she always walks so straight and poised. She also has a deeper voice that makes her sound older and wiser than 16. Cinderella is again to me very 1950s girl-next-door who wouldn't look out of place at a Hollywood premiere or gala from that decade. Aurora comes across more queenly and from the time period her story's actually set in.

Semaj wrote: The other princesses have a physical attribute that sets them apart from each other, as well as from the characters in their worlds. Snow White is hailed for ebony hair, rose lips and white skin (even though everyone in the film is white). Aurora for her golden locks. Ariel's noticably red hair was the most lush of all of Triton's daughters. In fact, most of the other princesses can be distinguished for their hair.

Cinderella, it's hard to tell. The only probable thing that distinctly makes her "pretty" is her small feet. Ignoring the fact that her toes are mudded together from some weird reason, her small feet are somehow the only ones that could fit the glass slippers, despite the gaping plot hole brought up in the film, and serve as an immediate and more "feminine" contrast to her stepsisters' noticeably large feet.
But no attention is brought to Cinderella's amber hair (the products that make her blonde can suck it), or her blue eyes. She was already established as pretty even without the silver ball gown. So what exactly was it that made her stand out from the other women? What really drew the Prince to Cinderella?

It's never made clear beyond what the plot dictates.

I suppose Cinderella's attributes are not physical. It's all personality. Throughout everything, she remained gentle and kind; she's good to animals, including making them clothes; she's ridiculously hopeful and optimistic, but not naive.

As for the foot thing, I guess that's her greatest physical attribute. Her foot was meant for the shoe. I don't know if you've seen Slumdog Millionaire, but in that movie it was stated that some people are just destined for a particular outcome. It was Cinderella's destiny to marry Prince Charming and her foot was her gateway to achieving that. Plus, the shoes were specifically hers.

As for the prince choosing Cinderella out of everyone else at the ball, in Cynthia Rylant's adaptation, she writes "Who can say by what mystery two people find each other in this great wide world? How does a young man find his maiden? His heart leads him. He finds her in a room. He asks her to dance. And when he touches her, he knows."

That explains it. Just love at first sight. He just knew.

Disneykid, I agree with everything you said except the very last part. Yes, Aurora may seem the obvious choice for the most regal of all the Disney princesses, but that's just it...it's obvious. Although Aurora was raised as a peasant, she was born royal and maybe some of her traits were innate? Plus, she sticks out. She's almost too glamourous and can seem unapproachable, while Cinderella's grace and simplicity seem very natural. She's not sterotypically beautiful and what makes her attractive is that she doesn't know how beautiful she is. I hate using real life examples, but Aurora reminds me of those glamourous actresses of the past, like Audrey Hepburn, Bette Davis, Elizabeth Taylor, Katherine Hepburn, etc, while Cinderella reminds me of Julie Andrews, Ingrid Bergman, Angela Lansberry, etc.

In the technical aspects, Sleeping Beauty easily trumps Cinderella. Sure, Cinderella looks beautiful and the character design is some of the best of the 1950s features. But Sleeping Beauty beats it in those areas thanks to stunning background work, solid character design and amazing music. So much so that it's one of the few movies where I can say I enjoyed it based solely on its technical merits.

That being said, Cinderella is the stronger, overall better film. Cinderella may be a passive heroine, but she evokes a strong presence. Snow White was just too innocent and even a bit of a ditz, while Aurora only has a few lines of dialog, then falls asleep and doesn't speak a word ever again. Cinderella has Snow White's grace and Aurora's beauty while having a bit of an edgy side that is somewhat related to the era is was released (the 50s).

The supporting characters are all equally strong as well. In Sleeping Beauty, many will say that they loved Maleficent and thought the fairies were cool. But I doubt someone will say "OMG KING STEFAN IS THE BEST!". They get the job done alright, but not enough to make them memorable.

Cinderella has Lady Tremaine, Drizella, Anastasia, the Mice, Lucifer, the Grand Duke and the King, each one providing a funny scene or memorable line of dialog. I will give Sleeping Beauty this, though, Prince Philip beats Charming when it comes to characterization .

This was supposed to be my first return to the forum. Turns out this may be one of my last posts if the forum ends in October! But I hope not!

I have thought, for a long while, that these days, Sleeping Beauty is now more popular than Cinderella, when Sleeping Beauty used to be like the least popular because it was thought of as a flop since it's theatrical release. I think people today like it so much because it's more recent than Cinderella, so more modern, as well as being more action and adventure-oriented, and even being dark, because, if you haven't noticed, today's generation seems really more into dark stuff. It's not hard to see why Lazario loves it so much, with it's horror-like elements.

The two films should be thought of as very different, Cinderella about conquering obstacles to rise above, Sleeping Beauty about conquering death to keep living. But they do also have many similarities which makes it fun to compare them.

Story: I never understood why everyone always says that Sleeping Beauty's story is so lacking. I mean, so much happens in it. But is it because it is basically all trying to avoid a curse or make a curse happen/keep happening, with no twists like Cinderella's dress getting made by mice, then ripped, or the glass slipper search after the ball is over? Or is it because there's long stretches of time where nothing's really happening, like we see more slow moments of Aurora or other people walking around while at least Cinderella's long moments are of mice or a godmother doing things that are very important help or of a couple falling in love?

If these are the case, then I can see it, but I think they make Sleeping Beauty merely lacking in story, not in overall movie, for Sleeping Beauty is kind of like Fantasia in it's long moments of beauty and music, as that how it tells it’s stories. As for Sleeping Beauty's stakes being higher, well, maybe, it depends on which you think is worse, staying asleep and possibly dreaming forever, and some possible deaths, or being a poor servant forever, never getting to be with your true love and possibly you or them having to marry someone you don't love, all bearing it alive and awake. When I was little I didn’t think Sleeping Beauty’s ordeal was that bad, she just sleeps until she gets kissed, but when watching the film, somehow it works and makes you care. And maybe she is suffering in death-sleep, even though Maleficent said she was dreaming of love and in repose, but either way, it seems more of an ordeal for those who know and love Aurora than for the heroine herself.

And while fate, emotion, and incompetence can be blamed for the fairies taking Auora back early and then leaving her alone, Maleficent using incompetent goons for up to almost the entire 16 years and only then discovering they were looking for a baby is too bad to bear. If they had the scene many years before the curse was so close, it would be more understandable.

Characters: The main character of Cinderella is of course Cinderella, and I think all of you instantly see how ridiculous it would be to list the three fairies as the main characters of Sleeping Beauty, so yes, it’s Aurora. If you think it is the three fairies, well, for one, Walt pulled a sly one making it look like it was really all about Aurora, but more importantly, we don’t really get to know the fairies’ lives, hopes or dreams like we do that of Aurora, because at least Aurora speaks of goals for herself while the fairies are concerned about someone other than themselves. And do we care about the fairies as much as past heroines or heroes? I don’t think most of us care about them the same way as main characters, so if they are meant to be main characters, they are still weak examples, just like Aurora.

Aurora is a nice, graceful, even charming girl, who’s beautiful operatic voice can strike some of us, but she doesn’t make a big enough impression or have a big enough presence to last during the rest of the film that she sleeps through to make us care about her more than the fact that we don’t want to see innocent, good people get cursed. At least, this seems to be the case, for most people. Imagine if Ariel, or even Cinderella were the ones who fell asleep, their liveliness may make us care about them through the whole film even if they did sleep through half of it, and we might consider them more like heroines than Aurora.

Not that Aurora doesn’t have a presence, as for some people, her beautiful looks, voice, and something in her ‘tude, perhaps I’ll call it her spryness, seems to make people like her more than the soft Cinderella, unless they are remembering the films wrong. But Cinderella’s soft, sweet, warm character is what draws me and I think so many more to her instead of Aurora. She doesn’t just have more screen time, because in that screen time she also proves to be kinder and more helping, with both the animals and villains, more playful and funnier (at least she’s intended to be), and even more daring and trying to face and change the villains, challenges, and fate. Aurora wasn’t even given the chance to be aware of her fate or of the villains. Actually, both Cinderella and Snow White out-do her in facing evil, being kinder, and being more helpful!

As for the rest, it’s true that many Disney films suffer from side-character screentime hogging, but the fairies, as not the main characters, turned out to be the biggest side-character-screentime hogs than either the dwarfs or the mice. And the mice, who I find cuter and more charming, are also even more honorable and loyal in how they struggle to help Cinderella while it seems easier for the fairies. The King and Grand Duke or more funny and dear than Stephen and Hubert, and though I must admit any character forcing someone to obey their will, especially of conforming to marriage and procreation, is yucky and bad, the Prince never was forced to marry, but merely be at the ball and see the choices, as the King even says he “couldn’t expect the boy” to pick any one there…until Cinderella, that is!

And for the villains, well, Lady Tremaine probably is the best villain in her film for what she accomplishes and how she does, and that she would make me jump more by her slightest movements if I met her in real life, but Maleficent’s design, magic, and the way she is along with her strong presence through the whole film actually make me pick her as the best villain for this, even if I’m not quite sure if she really is. It’s pretty much because she’s so awesome. But as for the villain sidekicks, Lucifer is absolutely tops, so evil yet so cute, and both he and the stepsisters are funnier and I’d more like to watch than Maleficent’s raven (Diablo, by the way!) or goons.

Music: Well, even though Tchaikovsky’s score is so dramatic and beautiful and, well, classically great, it was not created solely for the film, it was created for a ballet where no one talks, and with a rather different version of the story, too. Cinderella’s score is specific to every scene and moment, going along with the action, and when watching the movie on my computer with headphones made me realize how great it was, it was nominated for the Academy Award. And the particular sweet, warming, peaceful, sometimes grand, dramatic, or holy sounds from it make me pick it as best. And as for the songs, I think Cinderella’s songs are just fuller and more substantial, including the fact that the lovers reveal how they feel in Cinderella’s more wistful love song vs. Sleeping Beauty’s. When I think the original instrumental music used for “Once Upon a Dream” is better than the version with the lyrics…that’s an uh-oh for it.

Art: Of course Sleeping Beauty is so freaking beautiful, but I’d say it is because of the abundance of detail, perfect angles, and width that make it so. Cinderella is actually my favorite in large part because of how it looks, the design of everything. Overall, I love and prefer the romantic, swirly, grandly exaggerated designs and sometimes almost glowing dream colors of Cinderella than the overly straightened designs and dark, muted colors of Sleeping Beauty. I say Cinderella’s film is actually the more beautiful one. It is true that Sleeping Beauty is more striking, but how can it not be when the sharp angles strike right at you! And when I was recently watching Sleeping Beauty…some of the stuff actually looked kinda…like you could call it ugly. Like all that detail on the trees and walls and everything. I dunno. It’s like…so much… And by the way Dr Frankenollie, Cinderella was meant to resemble classical paintings, too, more so than Sleeping Beauty actually. Cinderella resembles the works of Fragonard, a French painter of Cinderella’s time period, while Sleeping Beauty looks more like illuminations and tapestries, flatter stuff.

You can’t say the design of Sleeping Beauty is “far superior” as Goliath said because more detail, width, and straight angles does not superior make. And those things are not all there is too design, more like just some details of it. The actual designs of Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty are probably about on par, but I think Cinderella has better designs than Sleeping Beauty, if not more beautiful designs. The reason is just because all the designs in Cinderella, with the impossibly tall castle on clouds, the hazy and arabesque ballroom, the elegant high-haired princess, the cloaked and hooded fairy, the firm but refined stepmother, are all better to me than the arched-castle interiors and well-dressed characters of Sleeping Beauty. Some of them may not be as striking or beautiful, and yet in terms of what’s needed for the film and what I wanna watch, they are the best to me. My love for the designs is part of my love for the film. And in that way they are more beautiful to me, too.

Here is a picture I made of some locations from Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty in the video game Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep. I am using them to illustrate what the designs of things look like without the influence of drawing, detail, style, and even color to a degree, so that it is purely the actual design you are seeing in the same "style". I chose to compare Cinderella's garden on the left with Sleeping Beauty's forest on the right, then Cinderella's ballroom on the left with Sleeping Beauty's throne room on the right:



Please look past the differing lighting conditions to make your judgement, but I would say here it is clear that Cinderella has the more beautiful and better/more want-to-look-at designs. Most especially the ballroom at least.

Atmosphere: As I said, I like most the holy, warm, and peaceful feelings that come from Cinderella’s romantic kingdom. Sometimes Sleeping Beauty has it’s own holy other-worldy feeling, but it’s not as powerful to me as in Cinderella. The tone of Sleeping Beauty is dark, and that actually lends itself to being swallowed very easily, but it is Cinderella’s sweet tone that wins loving feelings, though sometimes I think it can near too sweet, pretty much with the mice and birds singing or being sung to. And yes, as DancingCrab said, Sleeping Beauty goes for a more thrilling adventure angle than the nice, magical angle Cinderella does, but that’s just it, Cinderella is so nice, so warm, so good feeling, it warms and wins the heart. Like a good emotional story vs. a thrill ride? Words I can use to describe some feelings of Cinderella are, wistful, whispering, and glimmering, and for Sleeping Beauty, waltzy, echoing, and full of fanfare.

For Cinderella’s beauty among the girls in her film and the other princesses, no attention needs to be made to her hair or eyes, as none is made of Ariel’s hair or eyes or of Belle’s or of Jasmine’s. You can just tell people (and animals) think Cinderella is pretty, but the narrator does say the stepmother was jealous of Cinderella for that, too. And yes, the Fairy Godmother giving her a “daring” ballgown is indeed part of what drew the prince to her, as it was something very visible from seeing her far across the ballroom. The dress and slippers and feet are what need to be most beautiful about Cinderella, because she is not the fairest one of all or a sleeping beauty or a girl who’s name means beauty, she is a pretty girl who was recognized for her beauty when dressed beautifully, so the dress and slippers are most important, and do set her apart, aside from her beautiful kindness. Her hair, dirty like ashes and orange like a pumpkin, and her silver dress, pure-colored like her, full and romantic like her film, and sparkling like the magic it’s made from, and most of all her up-do, the only do with all the hair regally crowning her head, sets her apart from the other princesses.

seanjonmc, okay, so Cinderella has animation that is similar to that of Alice, Peter Pan, and Lady and the Tramp, but Cinderella was the first to have that style, as well as it’s own unique romantic fantasy style.

Goliath, you said you don’t care much for either movie very much, but now I call bullsh*t. Cinderella used to be in your top ten. Not very high, but still, it used to be, so saying you don’t care much for it makes little sense. I have a feeling you don’t like it now just cause of me, lol.

Goliath wrote: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.

Okay, all the characters you named as being more “lively”…were all meant to be more comedic and cartoony! No duh they seem looser to you! But Snow White, the star of Disney’s first ever feature and the one that got people to take animated main characters seriously and cry for them, is very much like the main characters of Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty. And you don’t know that “every pose and every movement is directly copied from live-action reference material”, you just think that, you just feel that’s what it is. But you don’t really know. So actually, if the future Disney animators were to try to make their animation like Walt wanted, they would probably make them more like the likes of Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty, especially when Sleeping Beauty was supposed to be, and so far has been, hailed as his triumph of animation.

Semaj, the film ending with Fauna changing the dress green may betray her peaceful character, and it is not so much a fight that needs to be resolved as it is the joy of individuals interacting. I mean, the happily ever after in the clouds is like heaven, maybe it says in heaven the worst thing to fight about is a happy battle over colors.

Victurtle, Cinderella filled it’s gaps with annoying mice while Sleeping Beauty did it with amazing visuals? Not really. Cinderella filled it’s gaps with personality filled mice that most of the time contribute to the plot and helping the story, and the whole thing has nice and pretty visuals. Sleeping Beauty filled its gaps with characters and animals that don’t talk or have undeveloped personality, taking their time messing up cakes or faking being a prince or drinking a lot of wine, all with slightly prettier visuals. Cinderella wins there, too.

Flanger-Hanger, I actually think Cinderella has a strength, not a flaw, in some of its characters looking more realistic and others looking more cartoony. Because they are different, yet go together. The animators obviously knew that some characters were more cartoony than others. It was intentional. They purposely tried to put differing things together, and for many, it fit like a glass slipper on a dainty foot. I enjoy seeing a realistic and graceful heroin exasperated by a wacky and stretchy cat. : )

Lazario, Cinderella’s King did not force the Prince to marry a specific girl, he made him attend a ball with all the choices in the land, at which he eventually said, “even I can’t expect the boy to-“ meaning he may have let up, but then the Prince luckily found Cinderella, and he said he would marry no one else but her. And if the King is a bit too controlling, then alright, who said he was a dfinate good guy? At least Cinderella and the Prince both have passivity to controlling parents in common to share. As for Cinderella herself, the fantasy she has that people want is that she was so good and kind, and trying, she got what she wanted. She became friends with and helped people that helped her in return, and she kept trying to get her family to let her do things and tried to get out of the locked room (pulled on it, got Bruno) and get her prince (got the other slipper). As for her sending the red flag up to her stepmother, she was in an emotional state, struck by love. Characters that usually use their heads but are then stricken by emotion does not make their moves in those moments idiotic. The same goes for when she was overcome with emotion after being locked in her room, it’s why she didn’t think of getting out before the mice came, if she even could get out since she was locked in a very high tower and had little time. And yes her faith is part of what brought about her happy ending, the Fairy Godmother even says “If you lots all your faith, I couldn’t be here, and here I am!”

Diney’s Divinity, your thoughts on Cinderella’s and Tremaine’s similar regal composure and Cinderella’s very Christian ‘rising above” acting out are interesting and I think I agree with them, or maybe I just see the possibility of the latter. However Cinderella needed to make sure she wasn’t getting too abused, and she may have gotten too abused because she had to live there. But when she let’s Bruno chase Lucifer, she seems to let go of “rising above” such a thing, because she needed to. And I agree with you on Cinderella being the warmest Disney heroine, a big part of why I love her.

Disneykid, your thoughts on Cinderella are great, and I am so glad you thought Cinderella was looking at the architecture at the ball, as I hoped that was the case, too 9instead of her just being lost). Also, that she was the only one acting different from the other girls, because that was something that could be sighted as why the Prince was attracted to her.

tsom, thank you for all your thoughts on Cinderella, I love all you said, and I agree with so much of it.

I actually prefer Sleeping Beauty. The story may be simple and generic and the movie may have one of the most generic openings ever (the dry and stoic voice of the Narrator and the awful and cringeworthy "Hail to the Princess Aurora"). However, I do think Sleeping Beauty has a better score, songs and more enchanting moments. The Three Fairies are likeable characters, while Malificent is one of Disney's best villains. What makes Sleeping Beauty overall better, that it has a better drive and a more exciting story. Its more memorable and captivating for my taste.

While I certainly don't despise "Cinderella", I've never quite warmed up to that movie. I actually think Cinderella is a more beautiful and compelling heroine than Aurora. The animation is beautiful as well. However, I've always thought that movie was too sugary for me. The sections of Lucifer chasing the mices and the scenes with the King and Duke are distracting. Instead of trying to develop the Prince, they use too much time on the Duke and the King. The humor in Cinderella (at least for my taste) was not funny at all.