DVDizzy.com

I'm sure this'll stand the test of time alongside other modern classics like A Cinderella Story, Another Cinderella Story, and the soon-to-come Beastly and R U sick uv Cndrella Storys?: Text Edition.

_________________

I adore Cinderella. It's my number one favorite fairy tale. I adore Disney. They make some of my all-time favorite films. I adore Disney's Cinderella. To me, it's the definitive cinematic version of the tale. That said...

Has Disney really run out of ideas? All I keep seeing in their future are sequels and remakes. I'm not going to lie. The idea of a new Cinderella film from Disney intrigues me, but then when I start to think about it, I have to wonder why it's even necessary. Off the top of my head, we've got:

The 1950 Disney animated version
The Glass Slipper with Leslie Caron
The 1957, 1965, and 1997 versions of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical
The Muppets' Hey, Cinderella!
The Slipper and the Rose with songs by the Sherman Brothers
Ever After with Drew Barrymore
Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister ABC film

And that's not including modern remakes (A Cinderella Story, If The Shoe Fits) or TV show episodes (Faerie Tale Theatre, Grimm's Fairy Tale Classics). I understood the reasoning for tackling Alice and (the upcoming) Oz since those properties hadn't/haven't been given elaborate treatment using modern technology. But Cinderella's a head-scratcher since you're just toggling back and forth between the palace and Cindy's home. It's not some big special effects extravaganza that could really show off new technology. You're dealing with magic in two, maybe three scenes tops. The story's been told and re-told every conveivable way. What's this one got to offer that we haven't seen before?

Will I see this? If it's a straight-up period piece, then yes. Will I keep wondering why we're getting this for any other reason other than "easy brand recognition = profits"? Yes. Until I hear some casting and see some footage (which obviously won't be for years), I'm just going to tilt my head in bemusement.

_________________
Kelvin

My Blu-ray Collection

I agree with Disneykid that Disney's 1950 Cinderella is the definitive cinematic Cinderella, but I also feel that Cinderella is one the greatest, strongest, most beloved stories is Western literature. You can do so many things with it. And I think what we've been lacking is a really good, really lavish, period piece of Cinderella.

Referring Disneykid's list, I saw Leslie Caron's movie a few years ago (in fact it was the first time I ever saw Caron!) and I thought the movie was fine, and by now, dated. I adore R&H's takes on the story (haven't seen the Warren version yet, though), and heck, just to keep the tradition going, I wouldn't mind it if they remade that again. I've neither seen or heard of the Muppets or the Sherman Brothers takes (although I'd kill to see the latter!). Ever After just doesn't make the cut for the type of Cindy movie I want, although it's the only one that ever made it close, and Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister is just a whole different story.

If Disney makes this "A Cinderella Story 3", then forget it. But if Disney does something with it... I guess all comes down to this- the story of Cinderella has tremendous potential to be made into a fantastic, incredible, live-action film that will never be forgotten, and we've reached a point with technology in which that's possible. Please, Disney- act out of character and make something out of opportunity!

_________________

Avatar and signature are Al Hirschfeld illustrations of Julie Andrews in Star! (1968).

Okay..now there's talks of 3 DAC turning into Live Action including

Cinderella - If this is based off the DAC

Tim Burton's Malificient Sleeping Beauty

and possibly a live action BATB


Good grief....I mean besides the 101 live action movies...Disney did do a Jungle Book Live Action but it was more faithful to the original book so I consider those 2 to be completly differ movies entirely....

_________________
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below

http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx

I've been saying I wanted Disney to do this for quite some time. Technology is at the point in which they can make movies look like something straight out of a dream. If they make this a period piece, which is the only way they better do it or else I will not see it, they could go crazy on the visuals. Just imagine the Annie Lebovitz photo of Scarlett Johannson in motion. It would be a spectacle. If they do this I would like to see it done as a musical, but to Disney's music from the original 1950 version. They could hire Alan Menken to write a few more songs and do the score and give it some depth. Maybe he could spruce up the old songs too. I won't be crushed if it's not a musical but that would be my dream. As long as it's a period piece I'll be happy. I'd love to see very stylized visuals, brilliant colors, and her dress in it's original color... SILVER.

Shhhh....the lavish period piece you seek lies in here...

And you must see the Leslie Ann Warren version of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical. To me, it's the purest one. I feel the Julie Andrews and Brandy ones played it too much for laughs, especially the latter. Unfortunately, that one's only on YouTube via song clips.

_________________
Kelvin

My Blu-ray Collection

A classic fairy tale adaptation of a live action Cinderella will at least be fresh in this current decade. I'll be fine as long as it's not a modern day take.

I'm guessing though it will be more along the lines of Ever After where Cinderella will probably be this tomboyish heroine type. I find it annoying but not surprising if Disney takes this route.

Thanks! I'll be gone for about a week, though, so I won't have time to watch it for quite awhile.

And I've seen at least a bit of a clip of Warren singing "In My Own Little Corner". But, honestly, is it really a secret as to which version I will prefer? I will try to check that one out some time, too, though.

_________________

Avatar and signature are Al Hirschfeld illustrations of Julie Andrews in Star! (1968).

I think Ever After is the best retelling of the Cinderella tale!

That said, I think the Disney version is the best telling of the fairy tale.

I don't know what to think. I guess I'm excited because I love a good Cinderella story since it's my favorite fairy tale.

We'll see how this goes! I wonder if it'll be a musical?

I love ever after, but the one thing I don't love about it is the casting of Drew Barrymore. I deal with it though, because otherwise it's a great movie.

I just so badly wish they would come out with a decent rerelease of Slipper and the Rose. Dying to finally see that in its entirety. I remember catching it on TV as a kid and crushing on Cinderella in it.

But, Disney's animated version will always be my fave, as much as Hilary Duff is one of my top crushes of all-time.

Wish they'd used Elisabeth Harnois in Ever After... She might be my favorite girl ever, period.

I go on vcation, for my beautiful blonde cousin's wedding in a sparkly white dress no less, listening to vows how when she first met him she knew and felt something was special...and then this happens...

My first reaction, was, of course, !!!!!!!! OMG pure extreme joy and excitement.

My second reaction was NOOOO now I can't make MY live-action version of my favorite Disney film!!!!!!

But after reading it all, now I see, if this is being done by the director of The Devil Wears Prada and 27 Dresses...this will NOT be anywhere near the kind of version I wanted to make, and mine will still be different enough.

First, I heard 27 Dresses was bad, but I like The Devil Wears Prada and thought it was pretty good. However, none of them are considered really, really good, and after the hundreth time of doing the Cinderella story, you'd think by now they would hire a director that has made lots of Best Pictures or nominations for Best Picture to make a version that will be guaranteed good on at least a high level. Also, these films are just...the more modern, poppy, shallow kind, not the kind of serious substance you'd expect Cinderella to have.

However, I was thinking that, as I watched The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda is in some ways like the stepmother, and Andrea is like Cinderella. The way the boss treats her serving girl. The heroine even transforms into a vision with her hair up at a point, going to gala events, and Meryl Streep would probably make a GREAT Lady Tremaine.

The Cinderella story has been done so many times, it actually holds the record for the story most made into films, and Dracula is second. They even say that roughly, some kind of version of the basic story is made almost every year.

Cinderella is a classic, and just like any really good classic piece of art, it can be made and re-made, it can be updated for each generation, it can live on in much more than one incarnation.

If you really think it's been done and you can't do it anymore...it's not true, each new person in this world can think of new ways to do anything.

When people on this board can still name the kinds of things they would like to see done in Cinderella, you definately know there's still lots of room to make some really good, even better versions. In fact, I am still not satisfied with any CGI yet, it was really great in the Brandy version and I loved the ideas and concepts behind it, but the rendering itself is still not seamless with the live-action yet.

It seems Alice in Wonderland's overlasting money-making in theaters made Disney pick this up, just like Maleficent.

Ever After is really good, but it's not really the original fairy tale, it's not really Cinderella (otherwise the title would be "Cinderella"). It takes away the magic, and it even takes away a lot of the importance of the ball and the glass slipper! And the heroine does so much, she pretty much escapes her fate without needing any help from anyone or anything else in the story, and the Prince's importance is lessoned, too. It's just can't be the best or definative Cinderella when it's hardy Cinderella...

I think Disney's 1950 version is the definitive cinematic one, certainly. I hope someday I get to make my epic, artsy, psychological live-action version of Disney's 1950 Cinderella, but I'll just have to keep dreaming and believing in it till that day...

_________________

Seems like Disney on a roll in making adaption of their animated movies:

Alice in wonderland(which really is a sequel)
Malificant- Sleeping Beauty
Cinderella
101 dalmatian
Jungle Book
Geppetto- Pinocchio
Sorcerer's apprentice-fantasia


Jungle Book was awesome, i'll say even better than the animated one.
Alice and 101 dalmatian didn't really excite me.

Geppetto...been long time since i've seen it but from what i remember, i did enjoy it.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif

I think Drew Barrymore was perfectly cast as Danielle (Cinderella). She played the role as independent and wise. She wasn't suppose to be beautiful. In fact, Barrymore chose to wear little makeup for the role and chose to make Danielle a brunette. She wanted to teach girls that the prince chose Cinderella for her intellect and integrity, not her looks. In fact, the older stepsister was prettier than the main character on purpose. I really don't know who else would have done the role justice, maybe except Gywneth Paltrow.

Also, the story told in Ever After was supposed to have inspired Charles Perrault to write the Cinderella story. It basically takes the story and places it in 1500s France, using real historical characters. You have the orphaned girl, her social climbing stepmother, two stepsisters (one who is mean, while the other is kind, just like in Perrault's version), a prince who doesn't want to rule, and Leonardo da Vinci who acts like the fairy godmother. The mean stepsister calls Danielle Cindersoot or Cinderella because the girl would be covered with ashes and soot after reading by the kitchen's fireplace. The ball scene was the climax and the slipper is a silver-satin shoe with a glass heel. It's also refered to as a glass slipper by the Grande Dame telling the story. Yes, Danielle does rescue herself and she also rescues the prince and inspires him to build a university where anyone can study, no matter their status, but his role in the film was not insignificant. In the end, the storyteller says by the French Revolution, the "true" story was reduced to a simple fairy tale.

Oh, and the working title forthe movie was "Cinderella" before Ever After was chosen

Frankly, my problem with Drew in the role is I just don't think she's a very good actress.

However, I disagree that Cinderella is not supposed to be beautiful, ha. Fact is, a lot of people think Drew is the height of female beauty, so they are probably very happy with the film in that regard. I simply am not one of those people.

It's pretty bad, but I liked it. I'm a sucker for most romcoms, anyway. Plus, the sidestory between Malin Akerman's character and Edward Burns' character (I forget their names) is quite good, and one I would have rather seen as the main plot of the film.


If I had to pick an Oscar-winning director to tackle a live-action Cinderella movie, I'd probably want Ang Lee to do it. Among the Oscar nominees, definitely Jane Campion.

For my own personal "doesn't need an Award to show he can do it" choice, I want Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake, Stardust, Kick-Ass) to do a live-action version of Cinderella.

albert

_________________
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?

So when can I expect the Dumbo or Lady and the Tramp live action movie?

Except for the Jungle Book live action film, I have not been much of a fan of the live action versions of the animated films. That and there are a zillion versions of Cinderella. They are going to have to do an amazing job to get me to care.

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney

Well, I thought Drew Barrymore came up with the idea for Ever After...

But I almost find it hard to believe they were going to have Perrault gt his inspiration for writing the story after the story we see, they may not have researched their history enough (and there are some anachronisms). First, Perrault wrote his tale a century after this one, perhaps nearly two centuries after, and the Grand Dame calls the Brothers Grimm, not Perrault, to hear how "the story is real"! And then they mention they wrote about "magic pumpkins", but that wasn't in the Grimm's version!

Real quick I will say that I think Drew Barrymore is beautiful, yet I do think the older stepsister is prettier, but in a way Danielle is just...more beautiful somehow. To be honest Drew Barrymore just fit the fuller, rounder standards of beauty you usually see in old art, such as the art by Leonardo Da Vinci. Also, Perrault and other fairy tale writers may have used physical beauty as a metaphor or perhaps reward for inner goodness so perhaps Cinderella should be beautiful to follow the original, but I think in this thread alone we have proved that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Anyway it still not Cinderella, it's like "what if Cinderella had really happened and maybe the Cinderella tale was based on it", it's just not the same thing. It's very good, it's just not the same as the Cinderella.

AND...does ANYONE KNOW how Disney got this pitch, I mean, did the director of The Devil Wears Prada just randomly pitch it to Disney, or the producer pitched it to them, or did Disney ask someone to make this movie, and they accepted those people's ideas after asking for some ideas?

I would think Disney would be the one asking for the film after Alice in Wonderland's success, but I could also see people who were interested and knew it was the kind of thing Disney was looking for going to Disney first.

_________________

drew barrymore is ugly. Does not seem attractive.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif