DVDizzy Forum

Very interesting interview...thanks for the posting.

Wrt Cindy's choker ... she had that in the original flick, and it was part of the dress style of the time period Cindy came out of.

I've just finished watching it for the third time (and the DVD hasn't even been released yet), which officially classifies this as one of the best Disney sequels ever. It might be the best.

I've actually seen a sequel more times than some Classics... That's a disturbing thought.

There have been several cases where sequels outshown the original. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is generally felt to be superior to the original FRANKENSTEIN. Ditto FAST AND FURIOUS 2 ..vs.. FAST AND FURIOUS. Ditto SPIDER MAN II .vs. SPIDER MAN.

IMHO, If the next gen viewers (Y, Z, whatever) find Cindy III superior / more interesting than Cindy I, due to its "modern" story, heroine, and more advanced production techniques, then , with time, the Sequel will probably surpass the original in appeal.

kurtadisneyite wrote:IMHO, If the next gen viewers (Y, Z, whatever) find Cindy III superior / more interesting than Cindy I, due to its "modern" story, heroine, and more advanced production techniques, then , with time, the Sequel will probably surpass the original in appeal.

That's an upseting thought! But I think the classic story of Cinderella will never be surpassed by a sequel. Yes, Cinderella's animation is more appealing in III than in the original, but classic tales remain classic for ever.

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:

kurtadisneyite wrote:IMHO, If the next gen viewers (Y, Z, whatever) find Cindy III superior / more interesting than Cindy I, due to its "modern" story, heroine, and more advanced production techniques, then , with time, the Sequel will probably surpass the original in appeal.

That's an upseting thought! But I think the classic story of Cinderella will never be surpassed by a sequel. Yes, Cinderella's animation is more appealing in III than in the original, but classic tales remain classic for ever.

CIndy III better than CINDY I??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

If Walt would read this......

mariadny wrote:CIndy III better than CINDY I??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

If Walt would read this......

If Disney Duster read this, you mean!
Anyway, the original will always be the best undoubtedly. I think everyone believes that. NoIII is a a good sequel and a very nice movie but it just can't be compared to the original.[/b]

Well, only time will tell which one of these Cindy flicks becomes the "top" Cindy flick.
Then again, perhaps the new 3D Indian Disney studio will make a 3D Cinderella 4 that will blow the other 3 away.

IMHO; CIII's the best animated sequel Disney has made to date (BATB Enchanted Xmas is #2), and the corporation had real shortsightedness in closing the studio creating CIII. Fortunately many of those laid-off animators have hit the ground running and will be contributing their talents to anime and other productions in Australia and elsewhere.

Also, I've edited this post to take out the earlier "leaving" remarks: I'll be hanging around a while yet, but won't be very active as new QA job will keep me busy.

All I can say is; if you do or don't like a Disney animation, let Disney know what you like and don't like so ___perhaps___ they will do better the next time!

kurtadisneyite wrote:Anyway, thanks for the chats, folks. I learned a lot by being here.

<snip>

Have fun, and let Disney know what you like and don't like so ___perhaps___ they will do better the next time! Cheers!

You're not leaving, are you??? Stick around some more! I mean, I rarely reply to anything Cinderella-related, but every so often I'll read a couple pages of the saccharine sweet topic, and it's always fun reading stuff from an insider at the Mouse House!

Escapay

tsom wrote:I got the movie last sunday, and I've watched it three times so far. In fact, I just finished watching it with my mom.

I think the filmakers satyed as true to the film as they could, but not everything was completely true to the original, especially noticable in the modern sensibilities and new color palette, but those were deliberate, wecome changes. We did see Lady Tremaine do more cruel and life-threatening deeds, and it does seem to fit what she did in the original, nothing too extreme or out of her range. Christopher Barnes made this Prince sound different from Eric, but he still didn't sound much like the original voice. Both he and Cinderella were softer in the original. But he is lovable. I would not have liked it if the Queen had a rags-to-riches story, because then Cinderella's wouldn't be the first, it would be less original, less unique, more common, and altogether less important. And you can't have two Cinderella stories in a Cinderella movie! I loved the art direction, too, every idea was beautiful, even when not drawn as perfect as it could be. The backgrounds were the most perfect part of the film. I liked the songs, but they could have been better, they weren't great, they were good. I liked Prudence's role, also, but even though I saw Marie Antoinette, I don't remember Comtesse de Noailles. You meant the 2006 Kirsten Dunst version, right? Was she the one who took her dog away? Just like you, I liked how Anastasia was the nice one as there was a nicer stepsister in the Perrault version its based on, but...

tsom wrote:(which makes me believe that Anastasia is older)

...did you mean you believe Anastasia is younger? The younger was the nicer, right?

I liked Cinderella's narration, too, because it was just warm and friendly like her character and if they tried to get someone to imitate the original narrator DeVil's voice, it would be like they're saying this is what happens for sure in the Cinderella fairy tale and this is only a "what if?". I think the royal guards obeyed Tremaine because they knew she was the mother of the Prince's bride, though it could have been a poorly-thought out plot device to keep things interesting. And Cinderella was probably suprised when she found out the Prince was marrying Anastasia that night because she expected him to realize that Anastasia wasn't the right girl when he saw her. I thought the movie was too rushed in the beginning and ending, but the filmakers said they wanted a song that got through the setup and quickly brought viewers to the main plot. Cinderella II could easily occur after III, because they married at the end of III and are returning from the honeymoon in II. Cinderella III erases the Perfectly Perfect anniversary of Cinderella and the Prince that we saw in the beginning.

As for Cinderella getting a new wedding dress from the Fairy Godmother, they had to give her godmother something to do, and I think the new clothes symbolized a new life, and possibly a return to her former happiness. Besides, I love seeing a new transformation doen like in the original, correctly (the anniversary transformation was incorrect). If it is too modern, remember that Aurora, who lived in medieval times before Cinderella, had a low shoulderline as well.

3 out of 4 sounds fair. This was a good standalone movie, in my opinion. 2 stars would be too little. But maybe 3 out of 5 would be more realistic.

supertalies wrote:i just discovered something teribble!!!
the dutch cinderella III dvd is coming in april!!!
now i have to wait even longer!!!

Aaahhh! Aw! I can't believe it! I was gonna celebrate a little when you finally got the DVD! Well, I'll still do it in April. I'm so sorry, though! What a weird, sudden delay, though...

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:If Disney Duster read this, you mean!

You bet. But I have to admit, this sequel is more thrilling than the original, as in it had more danger, more at stake, more uses of magic, and was fater-paced. But what disturbed me more than someone thinking this could surpass the original was:

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:Cinderella's animation is more appealing in III than in the original

Hmm? Do you mean she looks more appealing, i.e. sexier, or you mean the shading and lighting or whatever changed in the animation looked better than the older Disney animation? Because Cinderella's original animation was far better in movement, drawing...

And kurtadisneyite STAY WITH US! I can't get enough of your knowledge and opinions!

Disney Duster wrote:

tsom wrote:I got the movie last sunday, and I've watched it three times so far. In fact, I just finished watching it with my mom.

I think the filmakers satyed as true to the film as they could, but not everything was completely true to the original, especially noticable in the modern sensibilities and new color palette, but those were deliberate, wecome changes. We did see Lady Tremaine do more cruel and life-threatening deeds, and it does seem to fit what she did in the original, nothing too extreme or out of her range. Christopher Barnes made this Prince sound different from Eric, but he still didn't sound much like the original voice. Both he and Cinderella were softer in the original. But he is lovable. I would not have liked it if the Queen had a rags-to-riches story, because then Cinderella's wouldn't be the first, it would be less original, less unique, more common, and altogether less important. And you can't have two Cinderella stories in a Cinderella movie! I loved the art direction, too, every idea was beautiful, even when not drawn as perfect as it could be. The backgrounds were the most perfect part of the film. I liked the songs, but they could have been better, they weren't great, they were good. I liked Prudence's role, also, but even though I saw Marie Antoinette, I don't remember Comtesse de Noailles. You meant the 2006 Kirsten Dunst version, right? Was she the one who took her dog away? Just like you, I liked how Anastasia was the nice one as there was a nicer stepsister in the Perrault version its based on, but...

tsom wrote:(which makes me believe that Anastasia is older)

...did you mean you believe Anastasia is younger? The younger was the nicer, right?

I liked Cinderella's narration, too, because it was just warm and friendly like her character and if they tried to get someone to imitate the original narrator DeVil's voice, it would be like they're saying this is what happens for sure in the Cinderella fairy tale and this is only a "what if?". I think the royal guards obeyed Tremaine because they knew she was the mother of the Prince's bride, though it could have been a poorly-thought out plot device to keep things interesting. And Cinderella was probably suprised when she found out the Prince was marrying Anastasia that night because she expected him to realize that Anastasia wasn't the right girl when he saw her. I thought the movie was too rushed in the beginning and ending, but the filmakers said they wanted a song that got through the setup and quickly brought viewers to the main plot. Cinderella II could easily occur after III, because they married at the end of III and are returning from the honeymoon in II. Cinderella III erases the Perfectly Perfect anniversary of Cinderella and the Prince that we saw in the beginning.

As for Cinderella getting a new wedding dress from the Fairy Godmother, they had to give her godmother something to do, and I think the new clothes symbolized a new life, and possibly a return to her former happiness. Besides, I love seeing a new transformation doen like in the original, correctly (the anniversary transformation was incorrect). If it is too modern, remember that Aurora, who lived in medieval times before Cinderella, had a low shoulderline as well.

3 out of 4 sounds fair. This was a good standalone movie, in my opinion. 2 stars would be too little. But maybe 3 out of 5 would be more realistic.

Yea, that's what I meant. Anastasia must be the YOUNGER stepsister.

Yes, I'm talking about the 2006 version of "Marie Antoinette" starring Kirsten Dunst (which wasa great movie in my opinion). Comtesse de Noailles is indeed the woman who took Marie Antoinette's dog. I really liked her character because she was funny. Oh and the part where Marie Antoinette is being awaken by the females in the royal court was priceless, especially when at the end of it, Marie Antoinette said "This is ridiculous," and Comtesse de Noailles replied by saying "This, Madame, is Versailles." I'm glad it won Best Costumes at the Oscars. I knew it was going to win, even when it first came out.

As for the rags-to-riches story, I only thought that because I was watching something on youtube, where it showed a Making-of of the 1997 version of Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderella, and Whoppi Goldberg, who plays the Queen in that version, states that the King and Queen's backstory is the same as Cinderella and Prince Christopher's. The Queen's story was one of rags-to-riches. She was a Cinderella herself. You don't get to see that in the movie, but that's her backstory; So it was easy for the royals to sympathize with Cinderella. So after watching that, I thought it might have been nice that the Queen in Disney's Cinderella was the same way. But I see your point.

As for the wedding dress, I really liked it. It was my mom who thought she shouldn't have had it, but I thought otherwise.

So, I'm confused. Is Cinderella III a what if story? So does it mean that the events that happens in Cinderella III is simply make believe or what? I mean, I know the trailers were like "what if..." but I thought it was just asking a question that would be answered in the movie. So does it mean that Cinderella III is pretend? I'm really confused. Could someone perharps shed some light on this? Thanks.

Yes, I thought Marie Antoinette was a very good movie, too. I was hoping it would get nominated for Best Picture...

In acting class we've learned to give characters their own backstories to make us play them with more intent and knowledge. I think Whoopi made up that story as part of that. It's not a lie, it's just not official, you know what I mean?

Oh yea, I liked the dress, too. Now I see your mom had the problem.

What I meant with the what if thing was that since it altered the original Cinderell'as ending, it would be the real original Cinderella didn't happen, so this is clearly what if.,,.

I have watched CIII about 4-5 times so far... but thankfully it came out.. my daughter had been on a mermaid kick since oct!!! almost daily so CIII took her attention off that for awhile. I think the privce really had a better role in this movie than the first (havent seen the second) loved the part on the stairs with his father. I wouldnt say this is better than the first but i would say it is a better disney sequal than some others....

You know the whole thing about her 'new' wedding dress? Well, I have just discovered something!

In a colouring book ( ) I got from Disneyland Resort Paris in Christmas 2004, there was a picture of Cinderella in her wedding dress. But then, when I looked closely, I realised that it was the one from the movie at all, but a different one! Now, looking at Cinderella: A Twist In Time, I can see that it is actually her second wedding dress! How did that happen????!?!?!?

Disney Duster wrote:

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:Cinderella's animation is more appealing in III than in the original

Hmm? Do you mean she looks more appealing, i.e. sexier?

Yup, that's what I mean! Of course as a whole the original is a far better piece of animation, no doubt about that. But I like how Cinderella has a more modern look in the 3rd movie.

Whoah, atlanticaunderthesea, that's really weird! I mean...2004 was when this sequel started, I thought! I mean, I swear Frank Nissen said they started it after Pooh's Heffalump...

Yea, Frank Nissen said:

Cinderella III took about two and a bit -- two years and a bit, I think. We started in early 2004 and we finished it in the fall of 2006.

The coloring book was ready before the movie was, coming out in December 2006, but...weird.

Aladdin from Agrabah, I gotcha!

Tsom, I wanted to elaborate more on the "what if" thing. Cinderella III only being a "what if" is my opinion. Most people, generally the ones who don't know everything that goes on at Disney, would accept it as an official sequel. And there's nothing to say they're wrong. I used to accept all the sequels as canon, but now that they've made sequels to Walt's movies, my opinion has changed. I think a sequel can only be official if the original creators okay it and say "that's what happens afterward". Walt Disney can't do that. The makers of The Emporer's New Groove okayed the sequel Kronk's New Groove, and I'm not sure but I would think that the sequels to films where the creators are still around are legitimate, like The Lion King sequels and The Little Mermaid sequels, because their creators haven't prevented the sequels (although, they might not have been able to prevent them!).

Anyway, because Cinderella III erases the ending of the original Cinderella, and replaces it with a new one, it is like an alternate story. You won't be able to believe Cinderella's original story anymore, because the ending never happened according to Cinderella III, or it once happened but doesn't exist anymore. I'm not going to believe that Cinderella's original perfect happy ending never existed! And the "what if" thing was most likely just a promotional tagline, but it fits with what I'm saying. I like to view the sequels as what could happen, but not what definately does happen.

Por dios, sacrilegio decir que Cenicienta 3 es mejor que la 1....
Hay gente que no tiene ni idea de cine.
EL guión de CIII es pura basura

Oh my God¡¡
It's a sin to say that CIII is better than CI.
There are people who does not know the good cinema
CIII's script is a pure garbage

Disney Duster wrote:Whoah, atlanticaunderthesea, that's really weird! I mean...2004 was when this sequel started, I thought! I mean, I swear Frank Nissen said they started it after Pooh's Heffalump...

Yea, Frank Nissen said:

Cinderella III took about two and a bit -- two years and a bit, I think. We started in early 2004 and we finished it in the fall of 2006.

The coloring book was ready before the movie was, cominmg out in December 2006, but...weird.

Aladdin from Agarbah, I gotcha!

Tsom, I wanted to elaborate more on the "what if" thing. Cinderella III only being a "what if" is my opinion. Most people, generally the ones who don't know everything that goes on at Disney, would accept it as an official sequel. And there's nothing to say they're wrong. I used to accept all the sequels as canon, but now that they've made sequels to Walt's movies, my opinion has changed. I think a sequel can only be official if the original creators okay it and say "that's what happens afterward". Walt Disney can't do that. The makers of The Emporer's New Groove okayed the sequel Kronk's New Groove, and I'm not sure but I would think that the sequels to films where the creators are still around are legitimate, like The Lion King sequels and The Little Mermaid sequels, because their creators haven't prevented the sequels (although, they might not have been able to prevent them!).

Anyway, because Cinderella III erases the ending of the original Cinderella, and replaces it with a new one, it is like an alternate story. You won't be able to believe Cinderella's original story anymore, because the ending never happened according to Cinderella III, or it once happened but doesn't exist anymore. I'm not going to believe that Cinderella's original perfect happy ending never existed! And the "what if" thing was most likely just a promotional tagline, but it fits with what I'm saying. I like to view the sequels as what could happen, but not what definately does happen.

I know, its so strange! I'm trying to scan the picture, or find another on the web. I'll post as soon as.

i just got my peter pan PE today and inside there was a coupon for 3 bucks off Cinderella III. i loved cinderella so im wondering if i would like cinderella III. 1 of the main reasons i want this is because it has movie reward points but i also think that it looked good. just post any opinions here
~Ryan~

potterrules93 wrote:i just got my peter pan PE today and inside there was a coupon for 3 bucks off Cinderella III. i loved cinderella so im wondering if i would like cinderella III. 1 of the main reasons i want this is because it has movie reward points but i also think that it looked good. just post any opinions here
~Ryan~

Well, I believe that most Cinderella fans have enjoyed this one (You need to consult Disney Duster), anyway, at least for a minor fan, this film song aren't spectacular, but Cinderella has a stronger role, and we get a more in-depth view of Prince Charming. Unless this sounded disappointing to you, this movie is a very faithful follow-up to the orginal (unlike Dreams Come True).

What's the final verdict? Is this movie worth buying?