Cinderella III: A Twist in Time DVD Press Release/Discussion

[Prudence]

I laughed and laughed at the other sequel jokes. There are certainly bits I actually liked in Cinderella II, of course.

I only saw parts of Hunchback II and left. Blech. What I saw of the plot was bad, the animation was bad, Madelaine (sp?) wasn't a well developed new character. And Zephyr or whoever was basically pointless.

[slave2moonlight]

You haven't seen Cinderella II or The Hunchback of Notre Dame II, have you?

Well, I agree about Hunchback II, but Cinderella II wasn't that bad.

*Waits for gasps*

In all honesty, if you take it for what it is, such as 'mice tails' its actually better. I'm a little peeved, that Disney tried to palm it off as a real sequel, but what's done is done. And IMO, I like all three stories.

Question; at the end of A Twist in Time, do they go back to their own time? Or stay there? Some say they stay there, but would that make sence.

I have been saying that about Cinderella 2 for years, that it's decent entertainment when taken for what it is, and not a falsely advertised sequel. However, I don't think I like it as much as you do. Especially after rewatching it the other day for the first time in a long time. Many of the voices are poorly matched, the art has NO style or attempt to recapture that of the original (though the characters do look like themselves), and it is just too dumbed down all around, like many direct to videos (but not all). However, like I said, it's still got some cute stories to it. The thing that bothers me the most is possibly the part where the mice are making Cinderella a book using crayolas, number 2 pencils, and stuff like that. Did they have that stuff in the olden days? Ha.

Anyways, I love Cindy 3, but one of my very few complaints is the answer to your question. No, they don't go back to their old lives with the original ending. They lose their perfect first year and the original ending is sort of erased from their minds as well! I think that's kinda messed up. Besides that though, I LOVED the movie and especially its loyalty to the first.

[Prudence]

Pfffff, of course they didn't have crayola crayons and such back then. I also agree with your last paragraph, concerning C III.

[~Daniel~]

I have been saying that about Cinderella 2 for years, that it's decent entertainment when taken for what it is, and not a falsely advertised sequel. However, I don't think I like it as much as you do. Especially after rewatching it the other day for the first time in a long time. Many of the voices are poorly matched, the art has NO style or attempt to recapture that of the original (though the characters do look like themselves), and it is just too dumbed down all around, like many direct to videos (but not all). However, like I said, it's still got some cute stories to it. The thing that bothers me the most is possibly the part where the mice are making Cinderella a book using crayolas, number 2 pencils, and stuff like that. Did they have that stuff in the olden days? Ha.

Irony at its best! I had no idea, you felt the same way I did, how cool!

Yeah, I think I like it more. Don't know why.

Well, IMO, the voices sound exacly like they did in A Twist in Time. The only difference I could tell, was with Gus. He sounded much closer his original voice.

I somewhat agree about the art. It could've been much better. =/

Heh, I never thought about the crayons/pencils. That does bother me. =|

Anyways, I love Cindy 3, but one of my very few complaints is the answer to your question. No, they don't go back to their old lives with the original ending. They lose their perfect first year and the original ending is sort of erased from their minds as well! I think that's kinda messed up. Besides that though, I LOVED the movie and especially its loyalty to the first.

I'm speechless. I just assumed they were going to hold off on it, or they would go back to normal once it struck midnight, but ugh! They stay!? Ok, that has to be my main complaint now... It just seems, wrong. But yeah, I need to watch it again, and see.

Anyway, thanks for the info! =)

[kurtadisneyite]

Cinderella II and III use the same voice talent, as far as I know (none of which came from C I's cast). But the budget on Cindy III was bigger, so the cast probably had a bit more time to polish their work. Several, like Cory Burton, have been doing voicework for 20 years and are very skilled.

Around 20 or so clips of C III on Youtube today. Whoever's posting these has gotten the frame rates right so they run smoothly and give a real idea what the animation's like, which is head and shoulders over C II and at times as good as C I.

When working on Hunchback 1's DVD some time ago, I got to see Hunchback II's first 5 - 10 minutes. All the artists were howling at how bad some of H - II was. But H - II did benefit from the original voice cast.

[Disney Duster]

Did anyone notice that the images we saw of Cinderella and the Prince walking along that flowery...bridge thing (buttress?) never happened in the movie?!?!



Anyway, Flanger-Hanger, I really liked the covers you made! The first one was cool, but the red and green reminded me of Christmas a little bit, I might have chose purple instead of red. I like how Cinderella looks like Zorro or the Lone Ranger on her horse! Also, the clock is a great touch and I noticed part of the castle stairs behind it! The other cover is nice, and it is like a Valentine's card. I don't like it as much as the first one, but it's a nice, and very classy idea.

I certainly hope there are no more sequels for Cinderella, just Disney Princess Enchanted Tales! Please... And I hope we don't see the princesses as kids, and I hope we don't see Cinderella have kids (even though the King wanted grandchildren).

Kurtadisneyite I love your info and I'm so glad you've been sticking with us! Your insight is very interesting. Do you really think Cinderella has an "improved" flavor? I personally think she lost a bit of her grace in being edgier, but I also think the original Cinderella could have done what C III's Cinderella did, just a bit less...brash?!

Tsom, let us know your opinion! Where's everyone elses opinions...? Timon/Pumbaa Fan said he was interested in this...and I think some other people are missing, too.

[Disneykid]

I, too, noticed that shot was missing, Disney Duster. At first it can be dismissed as just a promotional image, but the thing is that it doesn't look like any of the promotional images we've gotten. It looks like an actual frame of film (in widescreen and all). I'm wondering if this was a deleted scene (which the DVD could've used supplemental-wise) or some kind of animation test. Hmmm...

[kurtadisneyite]

Well, DisneyDuster, C - 1, despite its age, remains a very likeable story and character. That gives C - 2 and C - 3 a very strong foundation. Strong enough to let C - 2 survive its cheapness and withering critical reviews.

C - 3, while economical , is much better made than most DisneyToon sequels, and - unlike most sequels - gives Cinders (and the rest of the cast) a chance to EVOLVE and do some new things, broadening the character and making it more dimensional. The C - 3 prince and Anastasia come off very well, don't you think? I've no trouble with Cindy being more assertive, as long as she does it as CINDY - if she suddenly started doing Kill Bill routines or talking like a rap queen, that would, IMHO, be her kiss of death.

And IMHO there are a few setups in C - III that are downright alluring, even more so than C- 1 was.

One other Disney princess, BATB's Belle, is a major evolver. She and most of the characters grow into expanded roles as her story progresses, which makes things more interesting. I do, however, remember the writer of Belle's story saying she cried once too often, which I am inclined to agree with.
Ironically, the major sequel BTAB's Magical Xmas, also gave Belle another chance to evolve, did decently when released, only to see its studio, Disney Vancouver, closed shortly after release. Go figure.

Wrt the promotional art above; Often, the artists have style sheets to guide them and are encouraged to draw the characters in similar poses to the style sheets - it makes characters more recognizable. I remember major discussions happening when D's artists wanted to do original character poses for the books...sometimes those poses happened, sometimes not. The pose of Cindy on the C III cover was based on a standard pose, but drawn/shaded very carefully and "tweaked" to make her unique as possible.

Also, look closely at Cindy's face in this promotion art, then at a number of the C-III face postings here. Don't you find Cindys' C-III face a bit broader with equilateral triangular eyes/mouth relationship? She's not quite the same as the C-1 cindys done by Eric Larson and Marc Davis (Davis's Cindy tended towards closer set eyes and slightly narrower head, Larson's Cindy had larger eyes and a more rounded apperance.). It is ___extremely___ difficult to maintain facial proportions of a pencil or computer stylus drawn 2D character throughout a film (C-2 and at times C-1 vary a __lot__), but C-III manages to maintain Cindy's face consistency better than most.

[Atlantica]

There are lots of clips on youtube with Cinderella III, if anyone who hasnt got it yet wants to have a look!

[~Daniel~]

Philharmagic, over at Animated News, just revieled he has interview, with Cindy III producer, Margot Pipkin! The only catch is, his blog is in french, and I have no clue how to use google translate, or whatever. So maybe somone here can translate, and post?

Here's the link! http://www.media-magic.blogspot.com/

[Atlantica]

I've noticed that on DTV sequals, they always have an opening song, unlike their main animated feature counter parts. In the case of both Cinderella III and The Little Mermaid II, they both have an 'explaining opening song'. Do you see what I mean?

Cinderella has 'Perfectly Perfect', which explains the past year to the viewers, and TLM has 'Down To The Sea', explaining what they are celebrating. I think this is why some people can instantly turn off from sequals; it becomes too simplistic, and too different from original Disney.

I dont mind them at all, i like both songs, but i think they could open the movies differently. Just a thought!

[Prudence]

Cinderella II and III use the same voice talent, as far as I know (none of which came from C I's cast). But the budget on Cindy III was bigger, so the cast probably had a bit more time to polish their work. Several, like Cory Burton, have been doing voicework for 20 years and are very skilled.

That's correct.

[mariadny]

Well, you know that I hate sequels, but I thinks cinderella's song (C III) "more than a dream" is beautiful

[Poody]

Cinderella has 'Perfectly Perfect', which explains the past year to the viewers, and TLM has 'Down To The Sea', explaining what they are celebrating. I think this is why some people can instantly turn off from sequals; it becomes too simplistic, and too different from original Disney.

hmmmm.... those openings are actually some of my favorites....

[kurtadisneyite]

Just thought you'd all like to know that a long time Disney artist I know who has worked with many of the Disney heroines for years, in films and books, got his copy of C-III last week, and to date has watched it 10 times. He has __never__ done that with any Disney sequel until now; he's found C-III __that__ good.

[Disney Duster]

Kurtadisneyite you have a point, but I guess it's just the tale of Cinderella, not only Disney's, that is loved by pop culure in general. What I don't understand is why C III didn't seem to have the perfect animation that Bambi II seemed to have. I never saw Bambi II, so I'm only guessing, and I know that Bambi wasn't perfectly on-model in that film, but most people seem to say that one had the best animation, and I don't see why C III's animation isn't quite as perfect as that. I noticed the characters evolved, although Anastasia wasn't as nasty as I thought she should have been in the beginning...and the Prince, well, he was kind of "manned up" in this movie, less effeminate, so he is different, but I like his new character anyway. You are right that she did almost everything as Cindy, I just felt there were some exceptions, which I'll pick at when I go all in-depth later. The set-up in C III, well, I don't know if you mean the build-up of suspense or what, but I think that this film has more going on than in the first, because it's fast-paced and filled to the brim with action and magic.

It's "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas", and if only that had better animation...because that one was very good, I thought, though I only remember Forte and the flashback to the Prince becoming a Beast very well.

I noticed that Cindy on the C III cover is a touched-up version of an over-used (but one of my favorites) image of her, the same one from the DVD disc art!

Wait a minute...are you saying C III has Cindy looking more consistent than even C I pulled off?! I'd trust you if you said so, honestly, because technology today is more than they had back then. Personally, I found Ciny to be the best looking and most consistent-looking character in the film, except perhaps the stepsisters, and possibly the Duke, the King, and the mice, who I haven't looked at closely...

Atlanticaunderthsea, yea, I never noticed that! But personally, I think they rushed the beginning a little too much. Had I not read the book's first pages before, I may have been a little confused as to what is going on. I never heard "anniversary party" until I re-watched it and listened carefully to Jaq and Gus!

[kurtadisneyite]

Disneyduster, I tell very few people, but C-1 I have seen close to 50 times, including twice at the El Capitan screening in 2005 just after I finished my fx and composition for the CinPlat DVD main Menu artwork (there were other artists involved, for sure). Work required some of the viewings to make sure the menu art was right.
There are definitely variations of Cindy throughout that film. Compare Cindy in her chair singing in the morning (Larson) with Cindy smiling at the Godmother and shaking her head (Davis) and you will see what I mean.

Wrt another posters comments here, 2-D human animation is the absolute hardest to get consistent. There was one supervising animator, Ian Harrowell, who rode herd on Cindy and created all new Cindy model sheets (there were hardly any remaining before that!! ) which is one reason why the Cindy in III's pretty consistent. Still, variations crept through (at times her head's too big, her waist too short, and her arms vary in length).

Incidently, an artist friend told me the budget for C III was closer to $6 million, not $8 mil as I previously found on one web site. So give that former Aussie Studio credit for turning out such a nice looking feature on a skeleton budget!

[Atlantica]

While watching this film again (and again and again and again...!) I really noticed Cinderella's animation; which is, in my eyes, beautiful. The only frame when I think eugh! what have they done? Is when Cindy and the Prince first arrive at the anniversary party, and start to walk forward. If you watch closely, her eyes go a wierd shape, and she just looks strange! I'll post some screen caps later!

And also, what I really loved was the fact that Cinderella was drawn as a women; I've always considered her the eldest of the Princesses, along with Belle, and her animation reflected that. If you look as her figure, it is a wonderful, slender, shape, but that of a woman, not a girl. I just thought this was a nice touch. I think you mentioned this, kurtadisneyite, that Cinderella in the origninal had different aniamtors, and each drew her either thinner, or more womanly. I thought Cindy was graceful and beautiful in this film, and a clear continuation of character and animation from the original.

[kurtadisneyite]

There was an actual description of Cindy's physical characteristics in Disney literature in the 50's.
If I recall right, she was supposed to be about 5' 8" tall and weighing 140 pounds; More like Kate Winsett than the anorexic models we see so much of today.

In recent years, the artists working with Cindy slimmed her chest/bust size down a little, to give her a more delicate appearance.

[Prudence]

If Cinderella is 5'8, then a lot of the characters are extremely tall, especially for their time period! (I assume the stories took place between 1100 and 1600 A.D.)