DVDizzy.com

Well, I vaguely recall the original version. But here's what I heard...

The main issue is with how some colors were handled. For example, Cinderella's hair is a dark blonde, but the new DVD transfer makes it bright yellow, which is how the Princess merchandise sees Cinderella. Also, her dress sometimes has shades of blue, even though its pure white. Again, it looks like they were trying to make Cinderella look like her Princess self.

Disney Duster: By all means post that! I really want to see your take on the movie.

_________________

Stewie15, and Yuki, if I may call you that (omg it means snow, my old best friend named her cat that!), thanks for your interest in how Cinderella should look! Basically the new restoration looks drastically different, mostly in the brightness, and in some scenes where Cinderella's dress was originally silver/gray/white, the restoration made it look blue in those scenes on the DVD, but not all scenes of the dress. But it;s hard to know how the film was meant to be seen.

Pap64, Yuki, THANK YOU, so much, for your interest in my big post on the film! You have actually made me so happy. When I'm really happy, I walk around and dwell on it, I know that sounds weird, but I got up from my computer and did it!

I know I have fought over things with you both before, so I'm glad you are willing to look at and like something big I want to say. I was worried people had hated things I said and thought it was too much bull to really look forward to a big post of mine, but you have given me hope and happiness. No matter how dark the world seems, keep believing in happiness and it will come true! I don't care how overdramatic I'm being.

The post is going to take a long time, unfortunately not until Halloween's over, and even then I'm not sure! But I want to try and edit it to make it not as long for everybody here. It will still be huge. A lot of what you two have come up with about the film is similar to what I've thought and found, so I'll try to remember what you two thought and give credit when I write it. But I still have lots of what I am sure are surprise findings! And I was thinking about it, but now I will definately include pictures, thanks to you Yuki!

The Disney Villain is a book by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston detailing the earliest bad guys like Pete to villains from the renaissance films like Jafar! I think it had only one print, and only went up to Jafar. It seems it came out in 1993. It's very good, very in-depth, very informative, and has lost of great rare pictures, some of cels and some of animation drawings and some of conceptual stuff! It's a great book, totally worth buying but it's out of print! I got to my library to read it! I read a part of it in the library and put it back and come back and do it again! Oh, I'm Belle!

_________________

Im liking the ideas of grimm referencing,
you think the birds (and mice) bringing a dress to cinderella could possibly be taking something from the bird that brings her things in that version?
Also as to the willow tree, we see her there in the very beginning, with her father.
Perhaps she looks on it as a place full of happy lady tremaine-less memories, considering the house may have been changed- but the garden has had little attention at all.

This is what I always thought as well. When we become sad or depressed we usually turn to the things, places and even people that brings us happy memories. In Cinderella's case that place was the fountain and the bench under the tree, where she spent many days with her father.

Disney Duster: Well, I have to be honest with you. I still heavily disagree on some of your thoughts. But I have to give you credit for knowing how to defend yourself in a heated argument and have a way with words. So I would like to see that talent in a topic in which we BOTH agree on something. Plus, I am always genuinely interested in what people have to say on something that I like.

So I would be lying if I said that I wasn't looking forward to your massive review of Cinderella, especially since its one of your favorite films.

_________________

wow, I was thanked thrice by disneyduster (btw, yuki does mean snow, and tora means tiger... silly 10-year-old me thought that yukitora must've meant snow tiger, only later to study japanese and find that it meant diddly-squat)

Disney Duster, I think anything interesting is worth reading, especially if it goes against what you think (unless its about badmouthing people's religion ), because it really opens your eyes to different ideas and shows you how other people view things. I used to think Sleeping Beauty was Disney's worst feature ever just because it was SO boring, but then someone said something about it's artistic merit, and now I can't wait to blow $50 on it's collectors DVD set, and another $50 to get the blu-ray version once I get a ps3.

anyway, back to Cinderella, it really bums me out how grim the "original" tellings of the fairytale were, especially the part when the stepsister cuts her foot in order to fit the slipper. I wonder what Walt thought of this, and whether or not he saw himself as "censoring" these fairytales or rather making alternative versions, like the Grimm brothers.

I'm gana say something that will shock all of you and probably get bashed for it . Well anyway I thought the restored Cinderella 2 disc Platinum Edition was beautifully restored………

I quite like the grimm version, if only for the fact that she gets to the ball thanks to both of her parents (she plants a branch from her father, at her mothers grave, which grows into the tree that gives her stuff)
so in that sense it seems less random than a magical godmother turning up, its simply cinderella's mother helping her.

I assume that perrault's cinderella was first choice for the animated feature. I cannot see disney having the gore in it. Besides, the perrault tale seems more fantastical and magical, which is something that translates well to animation.

I actually thought the fairygodmother was less random than the tree branch, as you can interpret the her simply as someone with connections. Like some (albeit random) rich lady who came across and decided to give Cinderella a chance by providing her with a gown and a carriage.

Nevertheless, I like the idea of receiving help from both her parents.

Thank you again pap and yuki! Sorry about the name not working out, yuki!

Someday, I, too, think the birds and other animals helping Cinderella are taken from the Grimm's version. Which is why I'm slightly miffed that Snow White kind of stole that. I also feel Snow White stole the awakening kiss. But who knows if previous tellings had the kiss, like the silent film, and cartoon animals had helped cartoon humans long before Snow White.

I reluctantly admit the fairy godmother does sound more random than Cinderella's own mother helping from her grave, but Perrault came first, and an even earlier version of the tale seems to have a totally random fairy that isn't related to the heroine at all! So I feel Disney was actually keeping closer to the "original", if we could only know what the original is. After all, all countries had their own versions and the earliest one in Egypt had a bird bring the a heroine's sandal to the king!

amazon980, yea, the restoration is beautiful in it's own bright new way, but I find the versions before it to be a better beautiful.

Aaand I totally found this quote from this place, that said "Cinderella was re-released for the first time on DVD in October, 2005. Fully restored, the film shines even brighter than the original." Along with the whole "goes beyond the original brilliance" thing, I think even Disney is acknowledging it ain't Cinderella as it originally looked.

_________________

I personally didn't have any memory of the old transfers till I saw a thread here that compared the new transfer to all the previous ones.

I think the colors are brighter and it brings out a lot of great and beautiful details in the backgrounds, but the colors are perhaps too bright on the characters. Like I said earlier, I noticed that Cinderella's hair was a very bright shade of yellow when originally she was a dark blonde. Plus her ball dress jumps from white to light blue in some scenes.

Its still a great transfer but I have to agree that some changes were unnecessary.

_________________

well excluding the Rhodipus(is that the name of the egyptian slave cinderella?)
the generic story form cinderella took until the Perrault version (where he basically created a main version) was-
*Cinderella's mother leaves her an animal as she dies
*Cinderella's stepmother kills and eats the animal leaving the bones
*Cinderella prays to the bones and recieves what she wishes
The story remains similer in scottish/irish, chinese etc tales.

I imagine there are historians devoting their lives to the tales as we speak

Hey Someday, you can't claim those were the only versions around! How did it change from bird drops sandal to mother leaves an animal and stepfamily eats it, the Egyptian heroine didn't even have a stepfamily! And I saw the Chinese Cinderella with the fish bones when I was a kid, an animated version, which was cool. And I definately know come 1634 an already well-known version of the story with the fairy helping the heroine got written down, before Perrault and Grimm! And yea, I was talking about Rhodopsis.

_________________

You see, you have to question how much of the story got carried around, I mean the sheer amount of varients that exists worldwide is bizarre. I guess its the kind of tale everyone loves to hear.
Are you sure that the 1634 version wasn't perrault? I am unsure of exact dates, I just know he wrote his version in the 1600's.
What I am sure of is that perrault invented the majority of things we take for granted in the tale, that simply did not exist before him (thusly the great verre=/=vere, glass fur debate )
The structure I stated is not exact for all versions of the tale, Im just saying that there are a lot of versions of cinderella with that structure in it.
There is even a version of cinderella from italy called the Hearth Cat, wherin Cinderella kills her original stepmother, only to get a worse new one with six stepsisters!

It fascinates me, if only because I love the Cinderella story in general.

Well Someday, Giambattista Basile wrote, so far that I have found, the earliest version of the Cinderella story that we more commonly know, I guess with the structure we're most familiar with, in 1634. Perrault wrote his stories in the late 1600's, 1697, so it was really close to the 1700's actually. Perrault's story is rather close to Basile's. But Basile's actually has the heroine kill her stepmother to make her nice governess be her stepmother instead, but the governess has her own 6 daughters and soon the heroine is treated worse than before, like you said.

_________________

It would remind me more of the grimm tale personally, if only because despite the random fairy, the items still come from the tree and the ball takes place over three nights- as per the Grimms.
either or, its interesting all the same.

As per the disney movie, does anyone else get a jane austen regency feeling from cinderella's mothers dress?
Perhaps Im just looking at the high waist and thinking, omg this is historically correct!

Oh yea, you're so right, the tree, planted and watered by her, is like the Grimm's. Hope I remember that in my big post.

Wow, so that old dress is really accurate? I was worried. You see, Cinderella's architecture might be 1600's or even 1700's, but the costumes look 1800's. But as long as the dress looks like a dress from before those times, or perhaps the same as those times, like Cindy lives in 1700's and the dress is 1600's, yay Disney, they did their homework! Have anything on the dress they actually make, with the bows and trim? I wonder if Cinderella got that book after her mother had long already bought the dress, or if the book's also her mother's. Or maybe her stepsisters let her have that book to make them their own fancy dresses...

_________________

Speaking of dresses...Am I the ONLY one that thinks the Cinderella's dress for the theme parks is ugly? Well, I wouldn't say ugly, but rather underwhelming.

Look at the ball dress in the movie. The skirt is BIG, yet light enough that she could twirl and move in it. Second, the dress and accessories sparkle thanks to the ever so wonderful Disney dust. Finally...ITS WHITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know that making costumes for the cast members is expensive, especially since they sometimes have three or more Cinderellas at the parks. But still, Snow White's dress is accurate, Jasmine's dress is even more detailed than in the movie and Belle's dress is very accurate (save for the hoop skirt effect).

What I am trying to say is that the reason Cinderella's dress is so wonderful is because it was created by magic. Cindy looks stunning in it and its no wonder Prince Charming saw her and walked up to her.

You know how inaccurate the theme parks dress is? Little girls actually ask her about her glass slippers and she shows them silver shoes...Can't the slippers be clear so that it creates the glass slipper illusion?

OK, I admit I am being weird, but considering that Cindy is my girlfriend (right next to Belle...we see each other on Tuesdays and Thursdays ) she deserves a better representation of her character at the parks.

_________________

I, too, don't care for Cindy's theme park costume. Besides the fact that it's blue (groan), it's way too bulky. I don't like how the bustle comes together in the back in a massive bow. It shouldn't be made of the same material as the dress, anyway. It should be rounder and more cushiony. The sleeves are wrong, too. They should be thin, made of the same cushion material as the bustle, and stop at the edges of her shoulders, not go down the middle of her upper arms like Snow White's sleeves do. The lack of sparkles also make it seem really dull and lifeless. By comparison, the dress Helene Stanley wore for the movie's live-action reference footage, while obviously more crude, is actually more accurate. Compare:





I'm also not a fan of the wig. Besides the fact that it should be strawberry blonde (something Disney actually acknowledges in their theme park-exclusive merchandise), I don't like how big and plastered it looks. It practically looks like a 60s beehive. The only aspects they actually got right are the choker and the gloves: the two simplest parts. I can excuse the headband, too, since it's difficult to tell how it's supposed to work in real life unless you consult the Helene Stanley references (in which case the round pearls are actually earrings that are separate from the headband).

Still, at least Cindy doesn't get the worst of it. I'd say the princess who's been crapped upon the most by the costuming department is Aurora, but that's for another day.

_________________
Kelvin

My Blu-ray Collection

Thats a shocking difference! I guess it seems more startling when you arent caught up in the park.
Honestly, it looks like either Maria or Giselle found some blue curtains and stitched up a dress overnight. At very least, even if you dont make it a silvery white dress, at least differ the colours, the sleeves and overskirt are distinct from the rest of the dress. They are definitly lighter.

Ive always wondered about that headband, I like the idea of having the circles as pearl earrings.
I wonder if there is a fabric that could replicate the sparkling shimmery material of the gown in the movie.

Yes, Aurora's dress has problems as well. Its definitely truer to the film, much more than Cinderella's. But the problem lies on the shoulders. Disney tried so hard to make sure the actress playing Aurora doesn't show a lot of shoulder skin that they raised the pointy things and they look tacky.

Plus, her crown doesn't go all the way into her wig. It just sits atop her head and it looks BAD.

I know I may be acting obsessive over this, but considering the character's job is to deliver an experience as real as possible a little more attention to the costumes wouldn't hurt.

_________________