DVDizzy Forum

The BAFTAs have awarded Kurosawa, Kubrick, Wenders, Truffaut and Malle Best Director at various points in time.

Dr. Frankenollie and DisneyAnimation, what I mean is the cats just come in for a second and seem unecessary for Lady and Tramp's story because Aunt Sarah and the cats are not permanent replacements, they are temporary. So Lady being encouraged to leave her home for good because of them doesn't make too much sense. Isn't the point that Tramp is saying home life isn't good? But Lady's normal home life is good, this was a temporary problem.

As for the rat...I just don't get why a rat being in a baby's cradle is that big a deal. It can't eat the baby. It randomly comes in.

But I gotta say, Trusty's little accident still makes little sense to the main story. When Tramp kills the rat, we could see how he learns to accept and love home life. That would make sense. Not the side accident.

Dr Frankenollie, the side characters of the mice are fighting for the same thing Cinderella is. To live well in the chateau and eventually get out of the chateau. That's not interrupting the main story that's trying to aid the main story, unlike Trusty or the Siamese cats. The cats do have to do with antagonizing the main story but they are only there for one song, they still feel random.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:However, in comparison to the entertaining, eye-popping and hilarious Alice, the exciting and funny Peter Pan, the nostalgic, beautifully-animated and romantic Lady and the Tramp, and the suspenseful, captivating and visually magnificent Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella is the weakest.

You seem more in favor of thrills and technical than a cohesive journey experience with characters you care for like Cinderella offers. And when Cinderella is nostalgic and romantic and suspenseful and funny and exciting and pretty visually great too, it's hard to believe it's the weakest.

Disney Duster wrote:As for the rat...I just don't get why a rat being in a baby's cradle is that big a deal. It can't eat the baby. It randomly comes in.

Actually, I remember reading somewhere--I can't remember where, it might've been Orwell's 1984--that rats would sometimes kill babies in their cradles, ripping off the flesh. Or was that wolf-rats? I'm not sure. Either way, the rat in L&tT is larger than a normal rat, so I considered it very dangerous.

But I disagree by far that Cinderella is the weakest of the '50s. That would belong Alice in Wonderland. Even Walt considered it a failure.

Disney Duster wrote:As for the rat...I just don't get why a rat being in a baby's cradle is that big a deal. It can't eat the baby. It randomly comes in.

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?sto ... &catid=142

Regardless, I wouldn't want a wild rat like that anywhere near a baby. Sharp teeth and claws, possibly diseased . . . and very dangerous to a helpless baby.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie and DisneyAnimation, what I mean is the cats just come in for a second and seem unecessary for Lady and Tramp's story because Aunt Sarah and the cats are not permanent replacements, they are temporary. So Lady being encouraged to leave her home for good because of them doesn't make too much sense. Isn't the point that Tramp is saying home life isn't good? But Lady's normal home life is good, this was a temporary problem.

You weren't supposed to infer that Tramp was right about the home life being good; it is good, we see that in the pleasant first scene with Lady, Jock and Trusty, and in the end, Tramp accepts that the domesticated life is good. The story is of how people of different classes who initially dislike each other (partly because of their classes) overcome their different viewpoints and grow to love each other; that's why there is no problem with Tramp being originally wrong about home life, and why there's no problem with the fact that the only trouble Lady has at home is temporary.

Disney Duster wrote:As for the rat...I just don't get why a rat being in a baby's cradle is that big a deal. It can't eat the baby. It randomly comes in.

Like Disney's Divinty said...it can rip the flesh off a baby. I think it's a pretty scary scene.

Disney Duster wrote:But I gotta say, Trusty's little accident still makes little sense to the main story. When Tramp kills the rat, we could see how he learns to accept and love home life. That would make sense. Not the side accident.

It's for suspense, and like DisneyAnimation88 suggested, allows Trusty to relive his glory days. At several parts through the movie, Trusty is nostalgic about the past, and Jock often says that his friend has lost his sense of smell; the accident and its build-up give this subplot resolution.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr Frankenollie, the side characters of the mice are fighting for the same thing Cinderella is. To live well in the chateau and eventually get out of the chateau. That's not interrupting the main story that's trying to aid the main story, unlike Trusty or the Siamese cats. The cats do have to do with antagonizing the main story but they are only there for one song, they still feel random.

I kind of understand where you're coming from, but the Lucifer/mice scenes go on for too long. Instead of being quick and simple, several of them (the scene with Gus getting breakfast, the beads scene, etc.) drag on for too long and get in the way of the protagonist's story. The same cannot be said for your issues with Lady and the Tramp.

Disney Duster wrote:You seem more in favor of thrills and technical than a cohesive journey experience with characters you care for like Cinderella offers. And when Cinderella is nostalgic and romantic and suspenseful and funny and exciting and pretty visually great too, it's hard to believe it's the weakest.

Lady and the Tramp and Peter Pan are much more cohesive than Cinderella is, and I care for the characters of Alice, Wendy, Lady, Tramp, Jock, Trusty, Flora, Fauna and Merryweather much more than any character in Cinderella. You say that I'm in favour of the tehnical; that's not true, I hate style over substance.

However, if there's enough substance, then I will fawn over the style in a movie as well. For example, there's more to Sleeping Beauty in terms of substance than people usually give it credit for - there's the charming, pleasant humour, the well-developed and memorable personalities of the Fairies, the high calibre voice work, the atmosphere, and the suspense.

I don't hate Cinderella; but in my eyes, it has some of the weakest characters from 1950's Disney, some of the least touching moments, the weakest animation, and the weakest music. Cinderella is barely romantic - 'So This Is Love' is dull and the movie is not about her falling in love, but her escaping. There's only one truly suspenseful moment in it, unlike most of the other 1950's DACs. And even though Lucifer is a superb character, his antics are not enough to make Cinderella as funny as the likes of Peter Pan, Alice and Sleeping Beauty.

DisneyDuster wrote: Dr. Frankenollie and DisneyAnimation, what I mean is the cats just come in for a second and seem unecessary for Lady and Tramp's story because Aunt Sarah and the cats are not permanent replacements, they are temporary.

What does it matter if they're temporary? Earlier in the film, Tramp has already put the idea in Lady's head that she is being replaced by the baby and that eventually, her owners will not want her anymore. Aunt Sarah and the cats exacerbate that paranoia. I understand what you're saying but they're not unecessary; their arrival marks the first time that Jim Dear and Darling leave Lady so it is significant in the story as otherwise, Lady would not have run away, Tramp would not have come to her rescue and so their romance probably would never have happened. Tramp doesn't tell Lady that her life is perfect; he warns her that eventually her owners will one day not want her anymore.

DisneyDuster wrote:As for the rat...I just don't get why a rat being in a baby's cradle is that big a deal. It can't eat the baby. It randomly comes in.

Like enigmawing said, rats carry diseases and have sharp teeth and claws so it could definitely have done harm to the baby. If you had a baby, would you be okay with a feral rat climbing into it's crib?

DisneyDuster wrote:But I gotta say, Trusty's little accident still makes little sense to the main story. When Tramp kills the rat, we could see how he learns to accept and love home life. That would make sense. Not the side accident.

Like I said before, I think ultimately its to give him his moment. We know Trusty was a tracker dog but has lost his sense of smell so Jock and Lady feel sorry for him. I think what happens to Trusty is kind of the proof that his stories of tracking and catching criminals were not all made up and that he once was the dog he claims to have been. Seeing that he's okay just adds to the happiness at the end of the film, its not a huge plot twist but just adds a little bit of drama to the characters' quest to save Tramp's life. It's like when the audience is briefly led to believe that Baloo has been killed at the end of The Jungle Book; it just adds a little emotional context.

I'm not disagreeing with you that those characters are relatively minor but I do think they add something to the story. The same could be said of characters like Scuttle in The Little Mermaid or King Louie in The Jungle Book; they aren't necessarily major characters but they're entertaining and don't detract anything from the overall storyline.

To be fair, its been over a year since I've seen Cinderella but I did watch Lady and the Tramp last week so I suppose its fresher in my mind which is why I'm disagreeing with some of the things you've said.

DrFrankenollie wrote:For example, there's more to Sleeping Beauty in terms of substance than people usually give it credit for - there's the charming, pleasant humour, the well-developed and memorable personalities of the Fairies, the high calibre voice work, the atmosphere, and the suspense.

I agree, though personally, I would say that Cinderella shares those qualities. I don't think there's really a weak character in the film besides the prince and that is simply because he's badly underdeveloped; for argument's sake, I suppose some might say the same of Aurora, though I don't agree with that. Sleeping Beauty is more suspenseful overall with one of the best climaxes of any DAC, but I think the scene where Jaq and Gus have to get the key up the stairs to the attic is brilliantly suspenseful. Overall I understand your reasons for criticising elements of Cinderella though.

Pokeholic_Prince wrote:I don't think a lot of them deserve Best Picture noms. Sure they are fantastic movies, but not Best Picture worthy.

Thank you for giving an unbiased opinion on the matter. While enjoyable, many of these movies just aren't Best Picture worthy (not that it's ever stopped the Academy from nominating crap before).

I’ll go over the one’s suggested for Best Picture one at a time:

Snow White - While this movie is entertaining, it’s not without it’s flaws. The Awful Truth is simply one of the funniest movies ever made (Cary Grant firing on all cylinders), The Prisoner of Zenda is a really fun adventure flick (Ronald Colman playing two different characters and having a blast), Lost Horizon is just now finally getting some recognition as one of Capra’s best (hopefully they’ll one day find the missing footage), and Captains Courageous is a classic in every sense of the word (although there is Spencer Tracey’s accent). Now Snow White certainly deserved a nom over those other undeserving titles (and there were quite a few) but in no way should it have won. I feel the Honorary Award was the right thing to do.

Pinocchio - This movie is very solid but so were some other movies that year. Rebecca, despite not being Hitchcock top tier, is still a great movie deserving of it’s award. Then you have the all time Christmas classic, The Shop Around the Corner and what seems to be two extremely popular Cary Grant vehicles, His Girl Friday and The Philadelphia Story. Now Pinocchio certainly deserved a nom over those other undeserving titles (with The Letter, The Great Dictator and The Grapes of Wrath being highly overrated) but in no way should it have won.

Fantasia - Now I love the idea of this movie and the excellent artistry that’s on display but not all segments are created equal (Goliath’s review of this movie and it’s sequel literally sums up exactly how I feel about each segment). This doesn’t deserve a win for the exact same reasons I stated above but it definitely should’ve gotten a nom, with Walt receiving another Honorary Award.

Dumbo - This just isn’t a very good movie in my opinion (there are some stand out segments) but lets look at the competition that year. The Maltese Falcon, one of my all-time favorite movies and my pick for Best Picture. Two, count them, two Preston Sturges classics: Sullivan's Travels and The Lady Eve. William Wyler’s The Little Foxes has fantastic acting with character interaction that just grabs you and never lets go. Meet John Doe, while a little morose in tone and not one of Capra’s best, is still leagues better then Dumbo. Of course, I have to acknowledge Citizen Kane, who was pushing the boundaries of filmmaking while Dumbo was reveling in it’s simplicity. While I don’t know if it even deserves a nom, it’s definitely better then a couple of the ones they did nominate.

Bambi - Such a relaxing and beautiful film. Sizing up the slim competition that year, I can safely say it deserved the Best Picture nom and win of 1942 (due to Academy rules, Casablanca didn’t qualify until the following year or Bambi wouldn’t have stood a chance).

Cinderella - While this is one of my favorites, it came out in 1950. Period. Harvey, All About Eve and Sunset Blvd. are simply three of the greatest movies ever made (Rashomon didn’t come out until the following year in the US, where it’s required play in a certain amount of theaters for a certain amount of time to qualify for Best Picture). The Asphalt Jungle is also pretty good up till the end (it’s in no way satisfying). Now Cinderella certainly deserved a nom over those other undeserving titles (King Solomon's Mines...really now?) but in no way should it have won.

Lady and the Tramp - I feel this is a great movie that just barely misses the win. Rebel Without a Cause, which coincidently wasn’t even nominated, is my choice for Best Picture. Actually, all of the nominees and even the winner are pretty mediocre movies (even problematic films like The Night of the Hunter, Kiss Me Deadly, and To Catch a Thief would’ve been much better choices). Lady and the Tramp was straight up snubbed when it didn’t get nominated for Best Picture.

Sleeping Beauty - Let me start off by saying this is a beautiful mess of a movie and that everyone involved just wasn’t on the same page (Walt was too busy with TV and Disneyland to coordinate). That said, North by Northwest came out that year and hands down deserved the Best Picture win (despite the fact that it didn’t even get a nom). Speaking of which, Some Like it Hot also didn’t get a nom and it too is one of the all-time greats, WTF? Then you have the quality but overly long Ben-Hur remake, Anatomy of a Murder and The Diary of Anne Frank, all of which are undeniably better then Sleeping Beauty. While I don’t know if it even deserves a nom, it’s definitely better then a couple of the ones they did nominate.

The Jungle Book - This movie is very appealing, with great characters and songs. Unfortunately for it, In the Heat of the Night came out that year and it deserved it’s win. The only other notable film that year, Wait Until Dark, wasn’t even nominated. I guess I should mention Cool Hand Luke, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, The Graduate, and Bonnie and Clyde, since people seem to love them, even though I find them highly overrated. Now The Jungle Book certainly deserved a nom over those other undeserving titles (Doctor Dolittle...really now?) but in no way should it have won.

The Rescuers - I don’t care for this movie and I find Star Wars to be a much more entertaining flick (literally the exact opposite opinion to certain members here).

The Little Mermaid - This should have been nominated and won Best Picture. I honestly find many of the nominated films to be mediocre (Driving Miss Daisy) and flat out boring (Field of Dreams, Dead Poet Society), to whose appeal is lost on me. How they got nominated over movies like Glory, Do the Right Thing and The Little Mermaid is beyond me. Two other movies [blockbusters] that seem popular enough with others to mention are Batman and The Abyss. So as you can see by sizing up the competition, The Little Mermaid was robbed.

Beauty and the Beast - IDK, I might just have to give it the win, even though it has some glaring problems. While Terminator 2: Judgment Day (once again, not nominated) is a great film, Beauty and the Beast probably has the greater replay value, which is pretty important. The Silence of the Lambs is good too but I think it gets a little more praise then it deserves. Someone mentioned Barton Fink, which at times I loved and at times I hated, it’s a very surreal experience. At the very least I’m glad Beauty and the Beast got it’s nom.

Aladdin - Despite some truly excellent competition that year, Aladdin not only should’ve been nominated, but should’ve won. It really is neck in neck with one of my other all-time favorites, Reservoir Dogs (coincidentally, neither of my choices were nominated for Best Picture). Three other excellent movies from that year that certainly gave it a run for it’s money: The Last of the Mohicans, The Player, (both of which weren’t even nominated) and Unforgiving (which won). It’s wasn’t just Aladdin that got robbed, but quite a few others too.

The Lion King - I have mixed feelings about this movie but feel it got more things right then wrong. It certainly has it’s moments of spectacle that will forever be ingrained in my mind. That said, Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption came out that year. While I appreciate the pacing of The Lion King, the other two movies are undeniably better. It’s honestly a tough choice as to which one I prefer, as they’re both soo good. That said, I do think Forrest Gump gets a little too much flack and is in fact a pretty good movie and while Ed Wood was a mixed bag for me, it was a fun ride overall. Now The Lion King certainly deserved a nom over those other undeserving titles but in no way should it have won.

Toy Story - Now this may cause some controversy but I do feel this movie deserved both the nom and win. It’s not like the movie won by default, as there were some VERY good movies out that year (The Usual Suspects, Se7en, Heat, Casino, Braveheart, Apollo 13), a couple of which I’d label among my favorites (the first four films, all dealing with crime, weren’t even nominated), but Toy Story just gets watched more by me. I’m sure others will disagree but that’s how I feel. At the very least we can all agree it should've gotten the nom over Babe, right?

The Hunchback of Notre Dame - While I do appreciate the depth they put into Frollo’s character and the wonderful music, it’s tonally all over the place to the point of where it’s distracting. Outside of Fargo, it wasn’t really that great a year for movies and The Hunchback of Notre Dame probably could’ve won if it didn’t come out. That said, Fargo did come out and it’s an excellent movie wholly deserving the Best Picture win of which it was robbed. I guess The Hunchback of Notre Dame should’ve at least gotten a nom but I feel it was more of an artistic achievement then a storytelling one.

WALL·E - I really like the first half but I’m kind of bored by the second half. Should’ve all been silent. Either way, Iron Man cam out that year and I love that movie to death. You don’t know how many times I’ve seen that movie. Other excellent movies out that year: The Dark Knight, Gran Torino, and to an extent, Slumdog Millionaire. If UP can get a nom, then so can WALL·E, but in no way should it ever have won.

Disney's Divinity wrote:But I disagree by far that Cinderella is the weakest of the '50s. That would belong Alice in Wonderland. Even Walt considered it a failure.

Thank you. For me at least, Sleeping Beauty is the second weakest of the '50s after Alice in Wonderland.

Dr Frankenollie and Disney Animation, I know that the cat scene allowed Lady to leave the home, but what I'm saying is shouldn't Lady have seen that it was not her owners that did something bad to her, it was the cats and Aunt Sarah, therefor she would plan to go back to her home as soon as she got out of the pound?

As for the rat, hey, Divinity didn't say it was definate a rat could tear the flesh of a baby! But I do see the how it's a threat and now I think it's alright.

As for Trusty, I re-watched that part and had forgotten he was used to save Tramp. But I still feel weird that it's about saving Tramp...then ohno it's Trusty in trouble, and what seems like a death scene moves on to a scene where everyone's happy! It's almost as bad as Bambi's too-quick transition from "your mother can't be with you" into that awful Gay Little Spring song! I think it would have been better if you saw that Trusty only got hurt, or maybe that he didn't get hurt at all, and Lady gave Tramp an emotional necking or something because she's so glad that he's free and can be with her.

It think fake deaths are kind of cheap audience manipulation, and I'm not saying that's exactly what Trusty and Baloo are, but I don't think they're as good as Disney should and can be. Baloo being fake dead even felt weird to me as a kid. I felt...cheated. But I haven't watched either one in a while maybe I wouldn't...but I remember that feeling...

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I kind of understand where you're coming from, but the Lucifer/mice scenes go on for too long. Instead of being quick and simple, several of them (the scene with Gus getting breakfast, the beads scene, etc.) drag on for too long and get in the way of the protagonist's story. The same cannot be said for your issues with Lady and the Tramp.

I agree that they go on for too long. I think you're very right about that. But I wouldn't say that they get in the way of the protagonist's story. I think they're scenes should be shorter and any with Cinderella longer (and one more scene of the prince), but I wouldn't call it getting in the way.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Lady and the Tramp and Peter Pan are much more cohesive than Cinderella is

Can you explain how?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I don't hate Cinderella; but in my eyes, it has some of the weakest characters from 1950's Disney, some of the least touching moments, the weakest animation, and the weakest music. Cinderella is barely romantic - 'So This Is Love' is dull and the movie is not about her falling in love, but her escaping. There's only one truly suspenseful moment in it, unlike most of the other 1950's DACs. And even though Lucifer is a superb character, his antics are not enough to make Cinderella as funny as the likes of Peter Pan, Alice and Sleeping Beauty.

What? Cinderella has a very strong heroine, villain, good side characters and villain side characters. The animation at many times is fantastically beautiful like the cat and mice, bubbles, godmother, and ball scenes, and the songs are among the best of the 1950's as Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, and Sleeping beauty have only like one memorably good song each! As for romance, I don't mean romance as in relationship-building I just mean romance as in the magical romantic feelings that the classy, beautiful (of which the negative might call dull ) So This is Love conveys, along with the story in general. And as DisneyAnimation said, there's so much suspence to the entire ending of the film, plus the suspence when before Cinderella's dress gets destroyed, and Cinderella escaping at midnight. In fact even when Cinderella's stepmother asks her into her room because she's in trouble is also suspenseful!

DisneyAnimation thanks for some defense of my favorite film!

Divinity, I don't know, I saw Alice recently and liked it...but it probably is the weakest. All the others I think feel like more emotional journeys.

jpanimation, nice list and thoughts. I haven't seen enough of those to know if I think you're completely right, but sounds good. Except there is one thing I feel pretty sure I disagree on, and that is I really think Babe is more quite the film and than Toy Story.

jpanimation wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote: But I disagree by far that Cinderella is the weakest of the '50s. That would belong to Alice in Wonderland. Even Walt considered it a failure.

Thank you. For me at least, Sleeping Beauty is the second weakest of the '50s after Alice in Wonderland.

I agree. I know some find issue with the mice and Lucifer in Cinderella taking up screen time--no different than the dwarves from Snow White, imo--but I feel Sleeping Beauty is worse than either of the previous two fairy tales. It pushes what should have been the main characters into the background to instead focus on the fairies (the filler equivalent of the mice in Cinderella taken to the extreme), the only really likable one of those three being Merriweather. The middle of the film--with the dress being made and the bland Aurora picking berries and being seduced by Phillip--drags and drags. Even the final battle, imo, is anticlimactic. At least Cinderella and the stepmother were in the foreground in Cinderella, and the Stepmother’s “loss” is satisfying. I also feel Cinderella and Tremaine are the best heroine and villain of the ‘50s, respectively, and there‘s a tension between the characters that they‘ve never really re-created, imo.

But, if I were being personal, I would always put Peter Pan dead last. The treatment of the women characters (Tink, the mermaids, Wendy, Tiger Lily--all weak, hateful, insatiable, and boy-obsessed), the obnoxiousness of Peter (which at least I can see as necessary for the story), and the depiction of the Native Americans are horrendous detractors to the film for me. That said, Hook and Smee are hilarious. Still, from a more objective viewpoint, I recognize that Alice is less satisfying.

And I agree with you about Wall E. The first half is very good, but it falls apart (for me) in the second half. I would never put it above The Dark Knight. I also agree with you on Dumbo and Hunchback, among others.

DisneyDuster wrote:I know that the cat scene allowed Lady to leave the home, but what I'm saying is shouldn't Lady have seen that it was not her owners that did something bad to her, it was the cats and Aunt Sarah, therefor she would plan to go back to her home as soon as she got out of the pound?

You have to remember that initally Lady is naive; Jock and Trusty lead her to believe that there is nothing better for a dog than a home and a family but Tramp plants the idea that her owners will one day abandon her. When Jim Dear and Darling go away and Aunt Sarah and the cats arrive, Tramp's warning is still in her mind. As far as Lady is concerned, Tramp's warning is coming true as her owners have left her for the first time in the care of someone who is openly hostile to her. In the context of Tramp's warning that "when the baby moves in, the dog moves out", Aunt Sarah and the cats are used to exacerbate Lady's fear that the warning will one day come true.

DisneyDuster wrote:As for Trusty, I re-watched that part and had forgotten he was used to save Tramp. But I still feel weird that it's about saving Tramp...then ohno it's Trusty in trouble, and what seems like a death scene moves on to a scene where everyone's happy!

I really am struggling to see the big deal here. As I said before, Trusty getting hurt is just to heighten the drama of that final scene; he finally relives his glory days and then seemingly dies in doing so and saving Tramp's life. When you see that he's okay and that Lady and Tramp have a family, it just adds to the happy ending.

DisneyDuster wrote:It think fake deaths are kind of cheap audience manipulation, and I'm not saying that's exactly what Trusty and Baloo are, but I don't think they're as good as Disney should and can be.

How are they not as good as what Disney should and could be? They did it with Snow White, the audience is led to the believe that she is dead and there's no hope left and then we get the happy ending. Same with Pinocchio when we are led to believe that he's died saving Geppetto's life but instead he becomes a real boy. In Peter Pan, we are briefly led to believe that Tinkerbell has died until we see her return with Peter on Hook's ship after the bomb explodes. In Beauty and the Beast, we are led to believe that the Beast has been killed by Gaston before the spell upon his castle is broken. In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, we are briefly led to believe that Esmeralda has died which spurs on Quasimodo to defeat Frollo. Ultimately, we always know that things will be alright in the end and that heroic characters very rarely, if ever, die in a Disney film. It just adds a little bit of drama and tension at points in the story where they are needed and make the inevitable happy ending a bit more satisfying.

@jpanimation: Interesting thoughts; despite our apparently different opinions on it, your mention of The Graduate reminded me that it deserved Best Picture more than The Jungle Book. Also, I'm glad you also believe that North by Northwest should have been nominated for and won Best Picture. Question - what's wrong with Dumbo? I think it's the second best, if not the best DAC made thus far.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr Frankenollie and Disney Animation, I know that the cat scene allowed Lady to leave the home, but what I'm saying is shouldn't Lady have seen that it was not her owners that did something bad to her, it was the cats and Aunt Sarah, therefor she would plan to go back to her home as soon as she got out of the pound?

She probably did realise that it was Aunt Sarah and the cats, but her owners weren't going to be home for several days, so there was no point in going home immediately. Also, even if Lady incorrectly believed that Jim Dear and Darling would never return, it wouldn't matter story-wise, because she is reunited with them eventually.

Disney Duster wrote:As for Trusty, I re-watched that part and had forgotten he was used to save Tramp. But I still feel weird that it's about saving Tramp...then ohno it's Trusty in trouble, and what seems like a death scene moves on to a scene where everyone's happy! It's almost as bad as Bambi's too-quick transition from "your mother can't be with you" into that awful Gay Little Spring song!

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think this transition is as abrupt as the one in Bambi.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Lady and the Tramp and Peter Pan are much more cohesive than Cinderella is

Can you explain how?

Because neither of them move the focus away from the main characters; regardless of what you say, I think the cats are necessary in Lady and the Tramp. Cinderella fills in (or rather wastes) time with the mice.

Disney Duster wrote:What? Cinderella has a very strong heroine, villain, good side characters and villain side characters.

I agree, but none of them are as good as the characters in the other 1950's DACs (maybe except for Lucifer and/or Lady Tremaine, but they're not enough).

Disney Duster wrote:The animation at many times is fantastically beautiful like the cat and mice, bubbles, godmother, and ball scenes, and the songs are among the best of the 1950's as Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, and Sleeping beauty have only like one memorably good song each!

The animation is great, but the animation in the other movies is greater. Secondly, the movies you mentioned have more than one memorable song each: Peter Pan has 'Second Star to the Right', 'You Can Fly', 'What Makes the Red Man Red?' and 'Following the Leader'; Lady and the Tramp has 'Bella Notte', 'We Are Siamese' and 'He's a Tramp' is arguably memorable too; and whilst most think Sleeping Beauty merely has 'Once Upon a Dream', but I think 'Hail to the Princess Aurora' is somewhat memorable too.

Disney Duster wrote:As for romance, I don't mean romance as in relationship-building I just mean romance as in the magical romantic feelings that the classy, beautiful (of which the negative might call dull ) So This is Love conveys, along with the story in general. And as DisneyAnimation said, there's so much suspence to the entire ending of the film, plus the suspence when before Cinderella's dress gets destroyed, and Cinderella escaping at midnight. In fact even when Cinderella's stepmother asks her into her room because she's in trouble is also suspenseful!

I think that the 'love' you're talking about it also shown in Seeping Beauty, and as well as the 'magical romantic feelings' you believe Cinderella has, Lady and the Tramp shows relatively realistic love. Furthermore, there's more suspense in all of the other 50's DACs (possibly excluding Alice in Wonderland), but I will admit that there is another genuinely suspenseful moment besides the staircase scene: the scene when Tremaine asks Cinderella to come into her room. That entire sequence is great.

Disney's Divinty wrote:I know some find issue with the mice and Lucifer in Cinderella taking up screen time--no different than the dwarves from Snow White, imo--but I feel Sleeping Beauty is worse than either of the previous two fairy tales. It pushes what should have been the main characters into the background to instead focus on the fairies (the filler equivalent of the mice in Cinderella taken to the extreme), the only really likable one of those three being Merriweather.

This viewpoint really annoys me. Let me explain: Snow White and Aurora are both MacGuffins in their respective films. Snow White is about how the heroes (the Dwarfs) live with and try to protect a MacGuffin (Snow White), but the villain (the Queen) wants to destroy the MacGuffin. Sleeping Beauty follows the same formula: the heroes (Flora, Fauna and Merryweather) live with and try to protect a MacGuffin (Aurora), but the villain (Maleficent) wants to destroy the MacGuffin. You can't complain that the Dwarfs and fairies get too much screen time, because they're the main characters.

Cinderella has an entirely different formula: a heroine (Cinderella) is treated like a slave by the villain (Tremaine), but with the help of a kind guardian, she is able to escape oppression and find love. Oh, and the Disney equivalent of Tom and Jerry appear occasionally, disrupting the actual story and wasting time that could have been spent further developing Cinderella.

Disney's Divinty wrote:The middle of the film--with the dress being made and the bland Aurora picking berries and being seduced by Phillip--drags and drags. Even the final battle, imo, is anticlimactic. At least Cinderella and the stepmother were in the foreground in Cinderella, and the Stepmother’s “loss” is satisfying. I also feel Cinderella and Tremaine are the best heroine and villain of the ‘50s, respectively, and there‘s a tension between the characters that they‘ve never really re-created, imo.

I've never found Sleeping Beauty's middle to 'drag'; I think the smooth pace it has is pleasant. It is crucial to the story (unlike Gus the mouse trying to carry as much chickenfeed as he can), making us understand that the Fairies consider Aurora their daughter and also introducing the subplot of Aurora and Philip's romance. Furthermore, I think the final battle is terrific, full of great animation and thrills.

However, I do agree that there is tension between Cinderella and Tremaine - the first scene in Tremaine's bedroom is undeniably great - but because of disruptions by the mice and Lucifer, the relationship between the two wasn't explored as much as I would have liked.

Disney's Divinty wrote:But, if I were being personal, I would always put Peter Pan dead last. The treatment of the women characters (Tink, the mermaids, Wendy, Tiger Lily--all weak, hateful, insatiable, and boy-obsessed), the obnoxiousness of Peter (which at least I can see as necessary for the story), and the depiction of the Native Americans are horrendous detractors to the film for me. That said, Hook and Smee are hilarious. Still, from a more objective viewpoint, I recognize that Alice is less satisfying.

Tinkerbell, the mermaids and Tigerlily are bitches, but I've always liked Wendy; I do agree with you about Peter's obnoxiousness and the racism with the Indians, but there's more great stuff in it than Hook and Smee: it has some of Disney's finest songs, the animation is superb and the scene with Mr Darling describing the ship in the sky at the end is strangely touching.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:This viewpoint really annoys me. Let me explain: Snow White and Aurora are both MacGuffins in their respective films. ... You can't complain that the Dwarfs and fairies get too much screen time, because they're the main characters.

I can and I do. I don't agree that Snow White is a MacGuffin, but I've heard this argument in relation to SB before. And, while I completely understand where that argument is coming from, it doesn't excuse the film for me. The fairies are no more interesting than the mice in Cinderella, which makes it particularly damning that they were made the main characters, pushing a heroine that could have been interesting into the background to the point that we don't care if the fairies--the protagonists--defeat Maleficent or manage to rescue her.

I will give the film that its structure/focus is different from the previous two fairy tale films, but "different" isn't always "better."

I've never found Sleeping Beauty's middle to 'drag'; I think the smooth pace it has is pleasant.

I don't find anything smooth about the pace. What is the difference between "cleaning the cottage" and the Tom and Jerry antics you talk about with the mice? Worse, these scenes pretend that we actually care about Aurora, who the film has taken no time to develop or make interesting. These scenes are a chore and the music is the only good thing to get out of watching them.

estefan wrote:You have to remember that Shrek was HUGE, when it opened. Monsters Inc was beloved, too, but at the time, Shrek was the animated film everybody was talking about. For a lot of Oscar wins, you have to look at them in an historical context.

The better aged Monster's Inc has had the last laugh, but Shrek does have those one liners

As for the Animated Feature category having less competition, it's getting more and more competitive each year. This year alone, acclaimed works like Rio or Kung Fu Panda 2 or Winnie the Pooh might not even get nominated, because of how strong it is.

I see what you mean about the numbers, but the award can still make things a bit confusing. If only one of the nominees is also nominated for best picture, then what's the point?

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:In the context of Tramp's warning that "when the baby moves in, the dog moves out", Aunt Sarah and the cats are used to exacerbate Lady's fear that the warning will one day come true.

But...the owners also left Aunt Sarah to take care of the baby. If the baby replaced Lady...they wouldn't leave her and the baby.

As for the deaths you mentioned, most of those are deaths that are undone by magical means, and by rules that have been set up previously. A lot of those deaths were also part of the original stories, and a lot of them were focused on and took more time, like people praying or hoping for them to get better. They were differently done scenes. Trusty and Baloo's deaths feel different because they feel less organic and natural but more like tacked onto the ending. However it's not a huge problem just something I have to admit doesn't feel quite right to me. Or maybe even just Trusty's.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:She probably did realise that it was Aunt Sarah and the cats, but her owners weren't going to be home for several days, so there was no point in going home immediately.

Okay, then that seems fair.

Dr. Frankenollie wrote:I see where you're coming from, but I don't think this transition is as abrupt as the one in Bambi.

No, I will admit it is not as bad as that one! Shame a masterpiece like Bambi has such a flaw.

DisneyAnimation and Frankenollie, I think what it also is is the ending of Lady and the Tramp doesn't feel as "big" to me as the one in Cinderella, or in a lot of the other 50's films, either. You know what I mean?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: Can you explain how?

Because neither of them move the focus away from the main characters; regardless of what you say, I think the cats are necessary in Lady and the Tramp. Cinderella fills in (or rather wastes) time with the mice.

I think I touched on this before, but the cats are necessary for only one scene and are only in one scene. Meanwhile the mice are extremely necessary for the whole movie, doing so much for Cinderella from being her companions in the same situation to helping her win her happy ending. The only thing is they feel they take too much time while the cats don't feel that way. Hence I think it's an issue of time not cohesiveness. And I don't think the cats are random I just mean...they're not as part of the film working towards this giant whole like the mice are.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:What? Cinderella has a very strong heroine, villain, good side characters and villain side characters.

I agree, but none of them are as good as the characters in the other 1950's DACs (maybe except for Lucifer and/or Lady Tremaine, but they're not enough).

Gotta say that's your opinion. You use the word good which is different from the word strong. I'd say Cinderella's the film that has almost all strong characters and is really only rivaled in that by Lady and the Tramp (when you remember Cinderella's prince isn't supposed to be a character so much as a goal).

Disney Duster wrote:The animation at many times is fantastically beautiful like the cat and mice, bubbles, godmother, and ball scenes, and the songs are among the best of the 1950's as Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, and Sleeping beauty have only like one memorably good song each!

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The animation is great, but the animation in the other movies is greater.

If by animation you mean like the look and movement...then I somewhat see what you mean...though I'm still not sure if I agree, I'm just thinking they perfected themselves a little more as they went on, and got bigger budget, and if budget = good film...that's kinda shallow. However if you mean in terms of what amazingness the animation can show, I'd say Cinderella's only rivals are Alice and Sleeping Beauty and I personally think Cinderella's best sequences of animation have such a highly beautiful or magical classiness and, so, are better than any animation sequences in the other movies.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Secondly, the movies you mentioned have more than one memorable song each: Peter Pan has 'Second Star to the Right', 'You Can Fly', 'What Makes the Red Man Red?' and 'Following the Leader'; Lady and the Tramp has 'Bella Notte', 'We Are Siamese' and 'He's a Tramp' is arguably memorable too; and whilst most think Sleeping Beauty merely has 'Once Upon a Dream', but I think 'Hail to the Princess Aurora' is somewhat memorable too.

Oh, yes, "You Can Fly", and "We Are Siamese" are well remembered...but I don't think the others are or as good, I mean "He's a Tramp" has some good parts but still isn't as memorable and also has some rather cringe-worthy barking.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I think that the 'love' you're talking about it also shown in Seeping Beauty, and as well as the 'magical romantic feelings' you believe Cinderella has, Lady and the Tramp shows relatively realistic love. Furthermore, there's more suspense in all of the other 50's DACs (possibly excluding Alice in Wonderland), but I will admit that there is another genuinely suspenseful moment besides the staircase scene: the scene when Tremaine asks Cinderella to come into her room. That entire sequence is great.

I'm not exactly talking about love but romance. And actually, I think Cinderella's is much better than Sleeping Beauty's because in Sleeping Beauty Phillip spies on her, grabs her hand and pesters her in kind of a way that at least I find rather dickish and rude, (if others don't, okay, maybe not then) and then they twirl and walk by a tree and that's it. In Cinderella, with them being silent and their looks to each other, the Duke's narration and then the fantastical and trippy "So This is Love" kind of dream sequence...it's much more romantic and you never know exactly how much time they spent or if they maybe actually did talk to each other, so, I find it more believable too as well as better. I admit Sleeping Beauty manages some romantic magic, just not nearly like Cinderella.

Yes Lady and the Tramp actually shows you more of their relationship and so if you prefer that then okay but it is kind of apples to oranges in the ways to tell an event in a story. As for the suspense thing, sure, we agree on that but there is also the dress ripping and midnight scenes I said but I really don't need more suspense in a film to be good just for it to be done well which in Cinderella it certainly is.

As for the stuff about Snow White and Aurora as MacGuffins...that is one view but...don't kid yourself that Walt was not selling those two heroines as the heroines, meant to be either above or at least equal to the other characters. I deifnately don't consider Snow White a MacGuffin anyway. She helped and improved the dwarfs and animals lives, even. The reason you think the mice in Cinderella are different is because either the mice aren't in the title and didn't have as big a part in the original story, because they're so little and not human, or because you find them boring. I have to admit I find some of their first scene with the chickenfood to be boring and that's the one that is the most too long, but it does lead to eventually show us not just Cinderella's kindness and some of her happiness in the chateau but also her relationship with her stepfamily. I've been agreeing a lot with Divinity here and that includes that their antics taking too long are not too different than those of the fairies taking too long (though unlike some people I do like the scenes in the cottage but really mostly the magic parts).

And do you realize, if Aurora was supposed to be a MacGuffin...uh-oh, she's an even bigger culprit of side characters taking too much time, because her time in the forest would be just that! And I have always found her time in the forest to be boring and drag too! Only nowadays do I like it because of the music and visuals.

And did you forget that there's also "Skumps"? I think you did forget, because that scene is just so forgetful, but that part also takes up too much time. So that's on top of the other side character time-stealing. It really is worse in this regard than Cinderella.

Once again, Cinderella's mice are important characters that are tied into the whole story and needed for each scene they are in. Where we agree is that the mice should have been scaled back a bit and Cinderella and her stepfamily and maybe even the prince scaled up a bit, but only there do we agree. Doesn't make it worse than the other side-character stealing in the other movies, of which some of them are the real worse ones.

And yes, that scene in the end of Peter Pan is like perfect.

DisneyDuster wrote:But...the owners also left Aunt Sarah to take care of the baby. If the baby replaced Lady...they wouldn't leave her and the baby.

I don't really understand your point here; they have to leave the baby in someone's care. I didn't say that the baby had replaced Lady but that Tramp has put the idea in Lady's head that Jim Dear and Darling will eventually stop loving her. I think Lady's fear that Tramp's prediction will come true along with her experience in the care of Aunt Sarah lead her to run away. But like I said, I'm not entirely sure of your point in this case.

DisneyDuster wrote:DisneyAnimation and Frankenollie, I think what it also is is the ending of Lady and the Tramp doesn't feel as "big" to me as the one in Cinderella, or in a lot of the other 50's films, either. You know what I mean?

I know what you mean and I agree with you here. For me, the 1950's film with the "biggest" ending is probably Sleeping Beauty with the drama of the escape and battle with Maleficent. I don't necessarily think that this is a criticism of Lady and the Tramp because I think it's a simpler film than the others in the 1950's so doesn't require the "big" ending as you put it. I think they all have a satisfying ending but that Cinderella's and Sleeping Beauty's were, for me, probably the most dramatic.

DrFrankenollie wrote:the relationship between the two wasn't explored as much as I would have liked.

True but personally I don't feel it's all that necessary in the film because of the opening narration. I think the scene where you see Cinerella collapsed alone against the bed sobbing, watched by Lady Tremaine and the two stepsisters lurking in the shadows is a perfect reflection of Lady Tremaine's feelings towards her stepdaughter and of their relationship. I understand what you're saying though.

"Destino" and "The Little Matchgirl" should have won the Oscar for Best Animated Short.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:True but personally I don't feel it's all that necessary in the film because of the opening narration. I think the scene where you see Cinerella collapsed alone against the bed sobbing, watched by Lady Tremaine and the two stepsisters lurking in the shadows is a perfect reflection of Lady Tremaine's feelings towards her stepdaughter of their relationship.

As they say, sometimes "less is more."

Disney's Divinity wrote:I can and I do. I don't agree that Snow White is a MacGuffin, but I've heard this argument in relation to SB before. And, while I completely understand where that argument is coming from, it doesn't excuse the film for me. The fairies are no more interesting than the mice in Cinderella, which makes it particularly damning that they were made the main characters, pushing a heroine that could have been interesting into the background to the point that we don't care if the fairies--the protagonists--defeat Maleficent or manage to rescue her.

Do you really believe that Aurora would have been more interesting than the fairies if she had more screentime? Back then, Disney princesses were the blandest of characters; the fact that the fairies are the focus rather than the princess is an improvement, not a flaw. And how can the audience not care about the main conflict? The conflict isn't about Aurora's life - the princess and Philip are just caught in a much greater crossfire, between the fairies and Maleficent. We care if the fairies defeat Maleficent because we like the fairies, and even though others may not agree, I think Philip (easily the best prince character from the Walt-era princess films) is also somewhat likable.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't find anything smooth about the pace. What is the difference between "cleaning the cottage" and the Tom and Jerry antics you talk about with the mice? Worse, these scenes pretend that we actually care about Aurora, who the film has taken no time to develop or make interesting. These scenes are a chore and the music is the only good thing to get out of watching them.

Although they're not completely necessary to the plot, I still like the cottage scenes, because they reinforce the audience's liking for the fairies, which is important (otherwise, we wouldn't care about their fight with Maleficent later on). Even though the mice in Cinderella are needed as plot devices (making a dress, being her company, etc.) they don't need to be very developed, and even if their scenes with Lucifer did add depth to their characters (which they don't, they just provoke a few laughs) they wouldn't be needed.

Even if you don't believe that the fairies become more likable in the cottage scenes, why do you think the music is the only good thing in those moments? What about Fauna's hilarious senility, or the entertaining fight between Flora and Merryweather? Finally, what do you mean these scenes pretend that we like Aurora? The only moment that is really about Aurora is when the fairies start crying about how she's come of age 'so soon', but these scenes are good nonetheless because they continue to humanise the fairies, and many viewers would be able to relate to their sadness.

Disney Duster wrote:DisneyAnimation and Frankenollie, I think what it also is is the ending of Lady and the Tramp doesn't feel as "big" to me as the one in Cinderella, or in a lot of the other 50's films, either. You know what I mean?

I do, but Lady and the Tramp isn't meant to be a big, eventful film. It's a deliberately paced, calm, domestic film, and the charming ending suits this style well.

Disney Duster wrote:I think I touched on this before, but the cats are necessary for only one scene and are only in one scene. Meanwhile the mice are extremely necessary for the whole movie, doing so much for Cinderella from being her companions in the same situation to helping her win her happy ending. The only thing is they feel they take too much time while the cats don't feel that way. Hence I think it's an issue of time not cohesiveness. And I don't think the cats are random I just mean...they're not as part of the film working towards this giant whole like the mice are.

I see what you mean, and the cats do seem one-note, but I don't think it's a proper, serious problem. They do their job (to get rid of Lady/move plot forward) and do it entertainingly, and even though they don't appear again, the issue of their spontaneous entrance and exit rolled into one isn't very noticeable, and it's not as bad as the fact that the mice's conflict scenes drag on for too long.

Disney Duster wrote:Gotta say that's your opinion. You use the word good which is different from the word strong. I'd say Cinderella's the film that has almost all strong characters and is really only rivaled in that by Lady and the Tramp (when you remember Cinderella's prince isn't supposed to be a character so much as a goal).

Well I think the opposite: Lady and the Tramp has stronger characters, rivalled by Cinderella. However, I think Sleeping Beauty's Fairies and Wendy from Peter Pan are also strong characters with depth aplenty.

Disney Duster wrote:If by animation you mean like the look and movement...then I somewhat see what you mean...though I'm still not sure if I agree, I'm just thinking they perfected themselves a little more as they went on, and got bigger budget, and if budget = good film...that's kinda shallow. However if you mean in terms of what amazingness the animation can show, I'd say Cinderella's only rivals are Alice and Sleeping Beauty and I personally think Cinderella's best sequences of animation have such a highly beautiful or magical classiness and, so, are better than any animation sequences in the other movies.

Okay, this really annoys me. I DO NOT think that budget = good film WHATSOEVER. When I'm looking at a film's qualities critically, the budget spent on a film, the revenue and the overall profit garnered are totally irrelevant unless I'm judging whether or not it deserved to be a success or flop. I don't think the visuals in Sleeping Beauty are better than Cinderella's visuals because more money was spent on them, but because they are truly much, much more beautiful, detailed, and feature greater depth and look like real, dazzling, moving artwork.

The character designs, the background designs, the layout, the European-esque structure details and the overall movement and flow of everything in Sleeping Beauty are much superior to those in Cinderella (which, in all fairness, has very good visuals nonetheless).

Disney Duster wrote:Oh, yes, "You Can Fly", and "We Are Siamese" are well remembered...but I don't think the others are or as good, I mean "He's a Tramp" has some good parts but still isn't as memorable and also has some rather cringe-worthy barking.

Yeah, "He's a Tramp" isn’t perfect, yet it’s still quite well-remembered.

I’ll reply to what you said about romance and MacGuffins later on today when I have a bit more time (you won’t have to wait long).

Disney Duster wrote:I'm not exactly talking about love but romance. And actually, I think Cinderella's is much better than Sleeping Beauty's because in Sleeping Beauty Phillip spies on her, grabs her hand and pesters her in kind of a way that at least I find rather dickish and rude, (if others don't, okay, maybe not then) and then they twirl and walk by a tree and that's it.

I have to disagree - Prince Phillip's roguishness and dialogue to his horse Sampson makes him likable in my opinion, and the most developed Walt-era prince (although he is still pretty two-dimensional). I don't think Phillip was being rude, he's being...plesantly surprising to Aurora?

Disney Duster wrote:In Cinderella, with them being silent and their looks to each other, the Duke's narration and then the fantastical and trippy "So This is Love" kind of dream sequence...it's much more romantic and you never know exactly how much time they spent or if they maybe actually did talk to each other, so, I find it more believable too as well as better. I admit Sleeping Beauty manages some romantic magic, just not nearly like Cinderella.

You didn't address one of the more romantic moments in Sleeping Beauty - the ending, which I much prefer to the "So This Is Love" sequence. Beauty's ending has the Tchaikovsky score, the surreal heavenly setting, the charming background choir and the enchanting changing of Aurora's dress from blue to pink and back again; it is also short, simple and sweet. Cinderella's "So This Is Love" scene goes on for too long and isn't as visually memorable as Beauty's ending; I've always found it pretty boring. Also, it would have been much better if we heard what Cinderella and Prince Charming had been saying to each other.

Disney Duster wrote:Yes Lady and the Tramp actually shows you more of their relationship and so if you prefer that then okay but it is kind of apples to oranges in the ways to tell an event in a story. As for the suspense thing, sure, we agree on that but there is also the dress ripping and midnight scenes I said but I really don't need more suspense in a film to be good just for it to be done well which in Cinderella it certainly is.

When it comes to the romance, I don't mind it when the prince and princess character fall in love "at first sight", but there's no denying that Lady and the Tramp is much more romantic than Cinderella - there's depth to the romance, and I'd pick scenes like the spaghetti sequence over "So This Is Love" any day.

I know there's enough suspense in Cinderella - but there's superior suspenseful scenes in Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp and possibly even Peter Pan. Individually, Cinderella isn't too bad, but in comparison to other 1950's DACs it is relatively weak.

Disney Duster wrote:As for the stuff about Snow White and Aurora as MacGuffins...that is one view but...don't kid yourself that Walt was not selling those two heroines as the heroines, meant to be either above or at least equal to the other characters. I deifnately don't consider Snow White a MacGuffin anyway. She helped and improved the dwarfs and animals lives, even. The reason you think the mice in Cinderella are different is because either the mice aren't in the title and didn't have as big a part in the original story, because they're so little and not human, or because you find them boring.

At the very least, Walt considered Snow White and the Dwarfs equally important in his first film; he instructed his animators to focus on the Dwarfs and decisively made them the film's stars. I don't know as much about Sleeping Beauty's story production in comparison to Snow White, but because the Fairies are UNDOUBTEDLY the main characters, I'm sure Walt deliberately focused on them more than the princess character in contrast to Cinderella.

I don't think the mice in Cinderella are different because they aren't in the title; that wouldn't make any sense, I think the Fairies are the main characters of Sleeping Beauty, but they're not in the title! It's not because they're not human and are so little either, and even though I do find them a bit boring, that's not the reason I see them as supporting rather than main characters. It's because unlike Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella focuses much more on Cinderella herself, and she isn't a plot device like the previous and subsequent princess characters.

Do you know what the very definition of a MacGuffin is? It's an object, event or character in a story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion, despite lacking intrinsic importance. Both Snow White and Aurora match that description, but Cinderella does not. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is about how heroic characters (the Dwarfs) encounter/protect and a villainous character (the Queen) tries to kill Snow White, who as an individual character lacks intrinsic importance - therefore, she's a MacGuffin.

Likewise, Sleeping Beauty has the similar plot of the Fairies trying to protect Aurora and Maleficent tries to kill her, but Aurora herself lacks intrinsic importance - therefore, she's also a MacGuffin. However, Cinderella is not a MacGuffin, because it's about her triumphing and battling against the antagonists, rather than just the mice. If she was a MacGuffin, the mice would be focused on even more than they were.

Disney Duster wrote:I have to admit I find some of their first scene with the chickenfood to be boring and that's the one that is the most too long, but it does lead to eventually show us not just Cinderella's kindness and some of her happiness in the chateau but also her relationship with her stepfamily. I've been agreeing a lot with Divinity here and that includes that their antics taking too long are not too different than those of the fairies taking too long (though unlike some people I do like the scenes in the cottage but really mostly the magic parts).

The chickenfeed scene didn't need to be as long as it was to demonstrate Cinderella's kindness/minimal happiness. Also, the mice's antics taking too long aren't like the Fairies' antics taking too long, because they don't develop the characters like Sleeping Beauty does, and the Fairies are the main characters (the mice are obviously supporting characters).

Disney Duster wrote:And do you realize, if Aurora was supposed to be a MacGuffin...uh-oh, she's an even bigger culprit of side characters taking too much time, because her time in the forest would be just that! And I have always found her time in the forest to be boring and drag too! Only nowadays do I like it because of the music and visuals.

The scenes with Aurora in the forest are somewhat needed to introduce her love with Phillip and an important section of the plot (Aurora appears to love a peasant boy but it's Phillip, which leads to Maleficent capturing the latter).

Disney Duster wrote:And did you forget that there's also "Skumps"? I think you did forget, because that scene is just so forgetful, but that part also takes up too much time. So that's on top of the other side character time-stealing. It really is worse in this regard than Cinderella.

I like "Skumps", thank you very much. However, as funny as it is, I admit - it's slightly unnecessary. However, that's the only scene in Sleeping Beauty which I think does truly border on unnecessary, so it's not worse in regards to filler than Cinderella is.

Disney Duster wrote:Once again, Cinderella's mice are important characters that are tied into the whole story and needed for each scene they are in. Where we agree is that the mice should have been scaled back a bit and Cinderella and her stepfamily and maybe even the prince scaled up a bit, but only there do we agree.

Fine, the mice are important to the story - but get too much screen time. However, we disagree when it comes to filler in other movies; I think Cinderella has more unnecessary filler than Sleeping Beauty, which really has only one unnecessary scene ("Skumps", which I love nonetheless).

I have noticed over the past that I tend to make a lot of spelling mistakes when I type up long things. Thanks for over-looking them in the past, and please do so in the future with such huge honking things as this!:

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:I don't really understand your point here; they have to leave the baby in someone's care. I didn't say that the baby had replaced Lady but that Tramp has put the idea in Lady's head that Jim Dear and Darling will eventually stop loving her. I think Lady's fear that Tramp's prediction will come true along with her experience in the care of Aunt Sarah lead her to run away. But like I said, I'm not entirely sure of your point in this case.

I mean that if Lady is afraid that the new baby will be cared for over her, her owners wouldn't treat the baby the same way they treat her by leaving both of them with a stranger.

DisneyDuster wrote:DisneyAnimation and Frankenollie, I think what it also is is the ending of Lady and the Tramp doesn't feel as "big" to me as the one in Cinderella, or in a lot of the other 50's films, either. You know what I mean?

I know what you mean and I agree with you here. For me, the 1950's film with the "biggest" ending is probably Sleeping Beauty with the drama of the escape and battle with Maleficent. I don't necessarily think that this is a criticism of Lady and the Tramp because I think it's a simpler film than the others in the 1950's so doesn't require the "big" ending as you put it. I think they all have a satisfying ending but that Cinderella's and Sleeping Beauty's were, for me, probably the most dramatic.[/quote]
It's not a criticism, it's why I think the other films are better than Lady and the Tramp, but if you think it's too apples to oranges, alright then. But even though the film needs a littler ending I wonder it could feel bigger like how Mr. Darling's remark about a cloud in his home with his family is so powerful but it's actually a rather small scene. Sleeping Beauty has probably the biggest ending but I don't think it's the better one.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I see what you mean, and the cats do seem one-note, but I don't think it's a proper, serious problem. They do their job (to get rid of Lady/move plot forward) and do it entertainingly, and even though they don't appear again, the issue of their spontaneous entrance and exit rolled into one isn't very noticeable, and it's not as bad as the fact that the mice's conflict scenes drag on for too long.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a problem, just that if we were to compare, its an example of how Cinderella is a big journey of all the characters battling or working together toward something which Lady and the Tramp doesn't have. And that is where I think the mice are better but I'm not just comparing the mice to the cats, I mean in general, to the kind of episodic nature different side characters come in.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Well I think the opposite: Lady and the Tramp has stronger characters, rivalled by Cinderella. However, I think Sleeping Beauty's Fairies and Wendy from Peter Pan are also strong characters with depth aplenty.

Okay well I don't wanna drag out the whole list of characters from both films so for now you can think the opposite lol. And yes, the Fairies and Wendy are very strong.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Okay, this really annoys me. I DO NOT think that budget = good film WHATSOEVER. When I'm looking at a film's qualities critically, the budget spent on a film, the revenue and the overall profit garnered are totally irrelevant unless I'm judging whether or not it deserved to be a success or flop. I don't think the visuals in Sleeping Beauty are better than Cinderella's visuals because more money was spent on them, but because they are truly much, much more beautiful, detailed, and feature greater depth and look like real, dazzling, moving artwork.

The character designs, the background designs, the layout, the European-esque structure details and the overall movement and flow of everything in Sleeping Beauty are much superior to those in Cinderella (which, in all fairness, has very good visuals nonetheless).

Sorry I just mentioned the budget thing to make you think and be sure of what you find as superior animation. But still, the reason that Sleeping Beauty was able to do you listed was time and budget. It is true that Eyvind Earle's art direction helped and perhaps if the film had the same budget as, say, Cinderella, we would still find it more beautiful, but things like how much detail, depth, and perfection in visuals and movement for the film are truly the result of a budget that Cinderella wasn't allowed to have. Plus it's widescreen which Cinderella couldn't have, and it seems not to be a coincidence that people only noticed how beautiful Sleeping Beauty is after the widescreen version became available on home video.

I will agree that the detail, perhaps depth, not sure, and perhaps the layout (though once again this was only possible because of widescreen!), but also the general level of perfection that Sleeping Beauty has is superior to Cinderella (though not all of it, some of the detail I think is kinda ugly like on trees and stuff, they overdid some things), but not the design or even the animation itself of which I feel Cinderella's is livelier. I personally think that it is Cinderella's designs which are the most beautiful, and better (as in more than just what looks great) than Sleeping Beauty's, if I had to choose, so we will never agree there. Most people seem to think what is most striking and pretty is also the best when it comes to design.

And Cinderella had European-esque structure details too, which I also find more lovely than those in Sleeping Beauty.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I have to disagree - Prince Phillip's roguishness and dialogue to his horse Sampson makes him likable in my opinion, and the most developed Walt-era prince (although he is still pretty two-dimensional). I don't think Phillip was being rude, he's being...plesantly surprising to Aurora?

Then we disagree. I even think he comes off as a bit of a dick to his horse!

Dr Frankenollie wrote:You didn't address one of the more romantic moments in Sleeping Beauty - the ending, which I much prefer to the "So This Is Love" sequence. Beauty's ending has the Tchaikovsky score, the surreal heavenly setting, the charming background choir and the enchanting changing of Aurora's dress from blue to pink and back again; it is also short, simple and sweet. Cinderella's "So This Is Love" scene goes on for too long and isn't as visually memorable as Beauty's ending; I've always found it pretty boring. Also, it would have been much better if we heard what Cinderella and Prince Charming had been saying to each other.

Ah, that last scene. One of my favorites. And it's there for two seconds. And once again it's not nearly as romantic as Cinderella. This is going to be a funny response because basically I am going to say I feel the opposite! If not more visually memorable, I have no idea on that one, "So This is Love" is at least visually more beautiful if you watch the whole thing together. And maybe you didn't notice but "So This is Love" is also surreal and even heavenly. Indeed, classy, slow things can come off as boring to some. But me, personally, and some others I have seen say, wish that "So This is Love" was longer. We feel it's a little too short. And the song and visuals standing in for whatever Cinderella and the Prince may be saying, or if the visuals and song are just the expression of their feelings while they say nothing, is all as deeply beautiful to me as the visuals themselves. It can be said, at least, that it is more romantic than whatever Sleeping Beauty has. And I do not like the choir mangling Tchaikovsky in Sleeping Beauty's ending scene, singing a speedier version and echoing badly. I am exaggerating a little but I don't find it very good.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:When it comes to the romance, I don't mind it when the prince and princess character fall in love "at first sight", but there's no denying that Lady and the Tramp is much more romantic than Cinderella - there's depth to the romance, and I'd pick scenes like the spaghetti sequence over "So This Is Love" any day.

I don't know if it's more romantic...I have to watch it again. Last time I did I think I just felt it was nice old Disney stuff. I think here I now get why you find it more romantic, and unfortunately it may be a little too different to compare. Cinderella gives me feelings of a high, grand, magical romance that is on some other plane. Lady and the Tramp gives me feelings of how cute and nice the two are together and how they should be together because of what Tramp does for Lady. But you couldn't have the Prince roll a meatball to Cinderella! That would not come off as romantic but downright weird! For me personally I would take "So This is Love".

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I know there's enough suspense in Cinderella - but there's superior suspenseful scenes in Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp and possibly even Peter Pan. Individually, Cinderella isn't too bad, but in comparison to other 1950's DACs it is relatively weak.

If you're measuring how strong a film is in how many romantic or suspenseful scenes there are, only there you might have a case for it being weak, but I think what matters is how such elements are used in and necessary for the film and I don't find Cinderella weak in that way at all. Well, actually I do think Cinderella should have more scenes at the ball with romance with the prince, but I think all Disney films could use a little something more, I don't find Cinderella weaker than other Disney films because of such a thing.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:At the very least, Walt considered Snow White and the Dwarfs equally important in his first film; he instructed his animators to focus on the Dwarfs and decisively made them the film's stars. I don't know as much about Sleeping Beauty's story production in comparison to Snow White, but because the Fairies are UNDOUBTEDLY the main characters, I'm sure Walt deliberately focused on them more than the princess character in contrast to Cinderella.

This may come as a shock, then: Walt originally said the fairies could be "the same", like Huey, Dewey, and Louie were practically the same. Their directing animators said that wouldn't be fun, so they gave them different personalities. It's pretty strange Walt would do such a thing for "the leads". But he did help write their dialogue in the scene where they discover Phillip is kidnapped.

I don't feel like the fairies are the stars. I know why on paper you could make a case for it, but the fairies, like almost all other characters, feel a little lost in the film. And what kind of lead characters shrink down to let a prince fight for them? "We were the main characters...but now you are!" I don't think so. If we review the songs in the film, they are all about a certain other character, the one who I'd say is the lead as audiences always expect, Aurora. "Hail to Aurora", "Once Upon a Dream", even "Skumps", are about Aurora, or Aurora and Phillip. Just like how in both Snow White and Cinderella the heroines get lots of songs to themselves.

This also says why I don't see Snow White as a MacGuffin. She is actually a strong character in her own way. She helps animals, the dwarfs, even cleaned the cottage in order to live there. In fact, she ran through the woods and got the animals to help her find a place to live. She somewhat drives the plot and her fate. Plus, if she has no intrinsic importance, than she wouldn't be something that enchants the dwarfs and audience so much that we are fearful when she gets the apple and crying when she's dead. She brings out a strong audience response which makes her strong at least in that sense. A true McGuffin would be something we don't care that much about. A true McGuffin is like Cinderella's prince. You might say he's a McGuffin. And unfortunately, Aurora is rather close to being that kind of McGuffin. But I still think she's supposed to be the lead and Walt wanted us to care for her and her prince, but didn't do it well.

And I wasn't saying the mice were lead characters, they are most certainly side characters, I was just saying that you think they take too much time because you don't see them as full characters to be beloved like the dwarfs and fairies are. Disney has always wanted its characters to be about equally loved, or liked.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The chickenfeed scene didn't need to be as long as it was to demonstrate Cinderella's kindness/minimal happiness. Also, the mice's antics taking too long aren't like the Fairies' antics taking too long, because they don't develop the characters like Sleeping Beauty does, and the Fairies are the main characters (the mice are obviously supporting characters).

Oh yea, you're very right there, the chickenfeed scene did not need to be that long. I guess I can agree they do not develop the fairies as much (not sure, but for now I'll say that), but just like we see the fairies constantly showing the characteristics of being bossy, ditzy, or feisty, and quarreling, we see Jaq showing his ingenuity, Gus showing his slowness and sometimes a sweet side, and the two showing their bravery as well as friendship. And in their last scenes in the ending, I can't think of a thing that needs to be cut, it's all great from them, which brings up the issue of how much screentime from earlier scenes should they lose, for the last great scenes wouldn't work if they were very small characters that suddenly got big parts. The point I'm making is they wouldn't need to lose much.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:The scenes with Aurora in the forest are somewhat needed to introduce her love with Phillip and an important section of the plot (Aurora appears to love a peasant boy but it's Phillip, which leads to Maleficent capturing the latter).

Aurora's scene with Phillip is needed. If she and Phillip are side characters, then they get to have some developing, too. But walking and sinking for how many minutes, chasing a voice just to land in a puddle, and dancing with a prince made of animals does not qualify as that, and would, if Aurora was a McGuffin or side character, be the epitome of taking up way too much time. In fact, one big chunk of that seems to be more about the animals getting their due, when they are even less characters than either Aurora or Phillip. I will give that dancing with the animals could be seen as showing a side to how playful Aurora is, but then it's still too much for a side character and especially for a McGuffin.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I like "Skumps", thank you very much. However, as funny as it is, I admit - it's slightly unnecessary. However, that's the only scene in Sleeping Beauty which I think does truly border on unnecessary, so it's not worse in regards to filler than Cinderella is.

Now if you add Skumps up to what I said before, Sleeping Beauty has way more filler than Cinderella. And it's not just slightly unecessary, it's really unecessary! The scene should have gone right from King Stephen worrying and Hubert comforting him to Phillip 's arrival being announced! On top of that as a side note King Stephen didn't seem nearly as sad as I thought he should and then later not as joyful as I thought he and the Queen should be concerning their daughter being gone for 16 years and coming back. But that's not really a big problem I guess.