DVDizzy Forum

KinOO wrote:

It's not science fiction, it's magic Or are you saying that turning mice into horses is also science fiction and that shouldn't have been in the original movie too? Why is going back into the past science fiction, and turning mice into horses or any of the other magic in the original movie is not? Learn to dream! That's what Disney is for

Learn to dream??? My dream are not cheap as this storyline is! Disney USED to make mes dream, but NOT with sequels!

Come on! WHY do you always find excuses to the flat storylines from DTV...

Lady Treamine was pure EVIL okay, but what makes her so scary is that she DIDn't use MAGIC! That's why she was one of the best villain! Plus as i already say, Fairy Godmother souldn't be seen by Treamaine as she is Cinderella's Jiminy Cricket, nobody apart her can see her! That plot is really a cheap cheap idea.

sadly what your saying has no fact to it, it was never inferred that only cinderella saw her...especially since it seemed as though the animals all saw her aswell, even in Magic Kingdoms new show fairy godmother appears and dances with the king, im not saying that show should be taken as gospel but merely that YOU and anyone else can assume only cinderella see's her but it was never stated therefore it has yet to be proven.

It's funny how so many people judge before they see any physical product

For Jiminy Neither it never had been stated, but it's like this! To say that you can see Godmother in Disneyland is such an absurd example! Anyway, you got my point!


Funny how some guys would defend some Disney's branded stuff to death even if it s*cked!

I think it sounds interesting and I'm actually looking forward to it, if my expactations are anything like what the movie will be, though. It's weird to have the stepmother to take the wand and "go back in time", I wonder how she will do it.. Maybe finding a spell in a book or eavesdrop the fairy godmother while she's talking about something like going back in time. Hmm. Hope they don't ruin it entirely.

Jens wrote:How can you call a sequel movie a cheapquel if you haven't even seen it yet?

"TRADITION" as Wilfred Brimley said to Jack Lemmon (in The China Syndrome when asked if he thought they were looking for a scapegoat for the nuclear power plant accident).

That's not tradition. That's being narrowminded...

well, you can also say someone who believes all these sequels are a good thing is being narrowminded. So far they all got a giant 'whatever' from me. I'm gonna try and ignore their existence from now on. What must be done is the following, sequel haters need to try and ignore the sequels, and sequel lovers need to accept there are a LOT of people who will continue to bash them. Fine. right?

PatrickvD wrote:well, you can also say someone who believes all these sequels are a good thing is being narrowminded.

Exactly! But the thing is, I don't think anyone really likes ALL the sequels. What I just hate is that all sequels IMMEDIATLY get put into a category of "bad" and everyone just bashes them because they are "bad". I don't know why, but everyone here probably thinks Disney is reading along and will stop the sequels because they say so. I have NO problem with people that don't like some sequels, but there are people on this board who just don't even TRY to like a sequel. They don't even give the sequels a chance!

I certainly don't like every Disney movie (be it a theatrical or dtv movie), but I receive everything with a certain level of constructive critism and I pass my judgement when I saw the movie. That's what some people here should learn... Everyone is praising Chicken Little because it's a theatrical movie from the Feature Animation department, but that could be as worse as a DTV. You just never know! I'm so sick of all this hatred against Disney's upcoming movies. Why doesn't everyone just cut them some slack and be more open minded like a fan should do. If you don't like the movie announcement you see, put it in a box labeled "IGNORE" and send it to Papua New Guinea. Just don't bother the whole wide world with your opinion of it. Does your opinion make a difference? NO!

I would never send a Disney dtv movie announcement in a box to Papua New Guinea. What did they ever do to deserve that? North Korea maybe, but why make another enemy of poor little Papua?

Actually, I'm really liking this plot. I tend to enjoy strong female vilains and the step mom is one that i think could have been elaborated on. Also, I thought she was missing a little too much from the CInderella 2. I dunno, I think it will be fun seeing her try to rehash Cindy's plot her own way. Im really looking forward to this lol!

She goes back in time ehh...........she'll probably try and ruin ol' Cindy's life and keep her away from the Prince (but in the end true "love" will always prevail).....She's ALWAYS been the WEAKEST of the Disney Villains........(p.s. can we finally get a Cinderella true to it's roots ie....the stepsisters eyes being poked out by birds...)

PatrickvD wrote:well, you can also say someone who believes all these sequels are a good thing is being narrowminded. So far they all got a giant 'whatever' from me. I'm gonna try and ignore their existence from now on. What must be done is the following, sequel haters need to try and ignore the sequels, and sequel lovers need to accept there are a LOT of people who will continue to bash them. Fine. right?

I have yet to hear someone say ALL of the sequels are good, even I who am fondly behind msot of them would never say that. Ignore them if you like, even though many of them (more recent ones) are just as amazing as the original.

Sequels are never as good as the original once it comes to Disney that's for sure.

Even though some may be good they are never great or better than the original in my opinion.

Out of all the sequels I have seen most of them have just been a dissapointment to the oringal

Dan05 wrote:Sequels are never as good as the original once it comes to Disney that's for sure.

Even though some may be good they are never great or better than the original in my opinion.

Out of all the sequels I have seen most of them have just been a dissapointment to the oringal

I enjoy analyzing your wording, because it is always such subjective opinions you give off, "may be good but never great"...i believe Pocahontas II, Lion King's and Aladdin's sequels,101 dalmations 2,Return to Neverland and Mulan II are great..and all the others are w/e no big deal...Sequels can be as good if not better No Disney Sequel does unless you count Resucers Down Under and Toy Story 2 (which were both excellent)

Cinderella 3? I liked the DTV Sequel and I have a niece that ADORES cinderella............but I think making a 2nd DTV sequel is going too far.........

I'd rather see more traditional disney animated films.......like Brother Bear for instance...............than another DTV sequel

I'd probably buy it though. My niece would probably watch it just because its Cinderella!

Actually Tremaine can't change history or she will create a paradox that would wipe out the world because she would prevent the events that leadt o her getting the wand from happening. I am looking forward to this and I wish people would stop bashing sequels. True Disney fans don't bash them.

bradhig wrote:Actually Tremaine can't change history or she will create a paradox that would wipe out the world because she would prevent the events that leadt o her getting the wand from happening. I am looking forward to this and I wish people would stop bashing sequels. True Disney fans don't bash them.

Well, nobody has actually travelled in time to proove any theory (although there are some theories that UFO's and Grey Aliens are infact highly evolved humans from the distant future who have mastered Time Travel rather than aliens ), so we can't really state what would happen.

The paradox-complex (often discussed as the Grandfather Paradox) has been discussed for a long time and no particular conclusion had been reached. Some people think, it would just be impossible to change time in a way that effects the future - the fact that the traveller came from such a future means that the past has already happened and cannot be altered - while others think it would result in a splitting of time into an alternative timestream, while others think when the traveller returns to their present, their memories will alter and they won't even know that they have altered history, or even travelled back in time. If they did indeed kill their grandfather they would either simply cease to exist. Wiping out the world, is also one of the theories, but its seems a bit harsh to me. After all, it wouldn't be the world, but the whole of creation! oops!

http://www.answers.com/topic/grandfather-paradox
http://nostradamus.time-loops.net/Paradox.htm

Maybe Lady Tremaine makes her remaining daughter so miserable as a bait for the Fairy Godmother?

Cinderella III!!! That's gonna be a great movie, I'm totally gonna watch it!!!


NOT!!!
I've always liked the origanal, and the origanal is the only one I'm gonna watch.

There's got to be something that trigers the stepmothers rage to make her want to change history. Maybe she was about to lose Drazella like she lost Anastasia.

Besides the central villian thread to Cinderella must be neturalized.