DVDizzy Forum

Dan05 wrote:Because all Disney sequels are cheapquels, so it will be nothing different for Cinderella III

Oh. Then Disney did an awesome job with their tiny budget for Rescuers Down Under, Toy Story 2, and Fantasia 2000.

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.

That makes it sound like they died! But really, that's a good suggestion because I really can't see the stepmother going back in time only out of hate for Cinderella.

Anyhow, I recently went to WDW for our Senior class trip (woohoo! It was so much fun, btw!) and we went into the villains' store at MGM and they had these funny book series called "My Side of the Story" and they were "written" by the different villains. I remember seeing Maleficient and Lady Tremaine. Maybe Cinderella III could be Cinderella, just from a different point of view, much like Lion King 1 1/2. After all, Lion King 1 1/2 is really Lion King III, but due to the nature of the film and its characters, they changed the title. Maybe this is the same case for Cinderella III?

"I was never ment to be an evil stepmother, just I want to teach Cinderella a little discipline and look how far she get!"

Yeah, I can imagine that...

Kram Nebuer wrote:

Dan05 wrote:Because all Disney sequels are cheapquels, so it will be nothing different for Cinderella III

Oh. Then Disney did an awesome job with their tiny budget for Rescuers Down Under, Toy Story 2, and Fantasia 2000.

Oh yeah, great comparission.

Where would Tremaine go back into to change? Prevent Cinderella from going to the ball ,from trying on the slipper, or dragging her back into the palace after midnight?

Hrm... HRM.

Not having warm, fuzzy feelings about this one.

Lady Tremain using fairy godmothers magic wand to turn back time? Geez, is she jealous much?

I wonder if Anastasia will be wed to the baker in this flick.....

What is it with Disney fans complaining about sequels. I wish it would stop. I can't stand the term cheapquel whoever came up with that is crazy.

bradhig wrote:What is it with Disney fans complaining about sequels. I wish it would stop. I can't stand the term cheapquel whoever came up with that is crazy.

The sequels are done on a low, relitavely cheap budget. Sequel + cheap = Cheapquels. I don't like to hear certain things too, but I choose to ignore. I'd suggest you do the same otherwise you won't see the end of it.

Nicely said Disneyfan2000

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:

bradhig wrote:What is it with Disney fans complaining about sequels. I wish it would stop. I can't stand the term cheapquel whoever came up with that is crazy.

The sequels are done on a low, relitavely cheap budget. Sequel + cheap = Cheapquels. I don't like to hear certain things too, but I choose to ignore. I'd suggest you do the same otherwise you won't see the end of it.

But a cheap budget alone doesn't mean a poor film. Which is worse? Star Wars: The Phantom Menace or Star Wars: A New Hope? Van Helsing or Bride of Frankenstein? A Nightmare on Elm Street or Freddy's Dead?

But a cheap budget alone doesn't mean a poor film.

In Disney's actual case, it does: Cinderella2, Pocahontas2, HunchBack2... cheap cheap cheap...

KinOO wrote:

But a cheap budget alone doesn't mean a poor film.

In Disney's actual case, it does: Cinderella2, Pocahontas2, HunchBack2... cheap cheap cheap...

And some would add Atlantis, Treasure Planet and Home on the Range. Expensive, expensive, expensive. In some cases (HotR), stupidly expensive for a film little over an hour.

I did'nt say Big budgets meant big movies, the movie industry is full of examples, you're mixing everything in your posts. you talked about cheap budgets taht could turn into huge hits.. anyway i don't see a concret example in Disney's politic.

KinOO wrote:I did'nt say Big budgets meant big movies, the movie industry is full of examples, you're mixing everything in your posts. you talked about cheap budgets taht could turn into huge hits.. anyway i don't see a concret example in Disney's politic.

OK. Well I would argue Return to Never Land and Lady and the Tramp 2, and perhaps 101 Dalmatians are good films. They're not cinematic milestones, but they are entertaining and more than watchable. (And I do actually think RtNL is better then the original Peter Pan). Although it's not a sequel, I also enjoy the cheaply budgeted Teacher's Pet movie.

But they are not, and have never meant to be replacements for Disney's Big Budgeted Feature Animation films. Was the Lizzie McGuire movie supposed to be seen in the same light as Pirates of the Caribbean?

Just like live action films can have films of various ambition and budgets, so can animated films. Disney are still investing heavily in big budget animated films.

I heard a twist on this plot of Cinderella III somewhere:

Cinderella III is when the step-mother gets some time thing and Cinderella follows her to different time periods.

Even more interesting!

A plot for Cinderella 3! WOW

How many actual plots are there in a DTV!

and I though she was going to try to prevent Cindy from marrying the prince.

So are they really going to bring Mickey back to his date raping, liquor drinking, Blackface wearing, cigarette smoking roots? I thought Mickey's wild days were behind him.

orestes. wrote:

KinOO wrote: i was thinking again to this storyline and was so disgusted!! Come On, Cinderella! A pure classic masterpiece, has to sold next to a "movie" that will make the StepMother go BACK IN TIME??? man this is a PURE outrage to the essence of the original movie...

No it can't be, it HAS to be an april fool!

Maybe she'll go back in time and erase the events of the sequel.

I personally think that's a great idea, but Disney would probably either say: or because they're silly.

Little Red Henski wrote:So are they really going to bring Mickey back to his date raping, liquor drinking, Blackface wearing, cigarette smoking roots? I thought Mickey's wild days were behind him.

What???

Can you explain these comments? Since when did Mickey have "wild days"?