Cinderella : what is the point ?

what is the point of seeing a movie with an old story without any really interested detail added t it
its just a waste of time

Yeah, well, a LOT of people (including myself) felt differently. THAT'S the point.

differently.. maybe

money

yes it was very boring. what age group is it for i cant see many kids watching it mine never. some graphics were good but it was nothing special.

---

some graphics were good but it was nothing special.

---

Almost all of the graphics were a lot more than "good." The visuals in this film are very special because they are phenomenal.

Although I would make a few exceptions to that. IMO the CGI mice and the lizard man were extremely silly.

---

what age group is it for

---

There isn't onethey were trying to appeal to all ages.

The reason why you found it boring is because you have the attention span of a retarded gold fish. The film is aimed at ALL ages. It's sad that people like you can't appreciate a beautiful story like Cinderella.

We write the story

That's not fair to the retarded goldfish.

yes that's exactly what im talking about there is nothing special and was very boring i think the Cinderella one made by Selena better

Well in this version they gave us Cinderella's whole back-story with her mother dying, and her father remarrying etc. In most versions of the story they just quickly summarize over her back-story to get to her present situation with her stepmother.

And by showing her back-story with her real parents, it helps us to understand her optimistic outlook on life despite the abuse she endures with her Stepmother. It must have been tempting to just skip over all of that to get to the magic (Fairy Godmother, etc) but nothey took their time and let us get to know Cinderella a bit more.

THAT'S what this version had that the other versions didn't have. Other then that yeahit was a traditional telling of the story but what's wrong with that?

There has been so many twists done on the Cinderella story over the yearsevery-time there is a story of an underdog who overcomes the odds and comes out the winner it is called a 'Cinderella Story'.

I say we were long due for a straightforward telling of the tale for once.

yea i agree they have a difference in the point u mention
but after this the storey is just the same

---

what's wrong with that?

---

the wrong is that when i`am watching the movie i just know that will happen in the next
so that was boring for me

Then apparently you are one of the people that can't look for other things in a movie that is already known to enjoy it and there are some like that. You probably were bored with "The Titanic" as well since you already knew the story and what was going to happen next.

I guess you just weren't able in this movie to appreciate the visuals with the great costumes and the dancing and the acting of new actors to these roles and the sets and backgrounds. Looking at visuals like that or being moved by new performances by actors we had not seen in those roles are to me not boring.

The other thing besides what the poster above stated to you that was slightly different is they made this Cinderella more of her own person and not someone that was looking for someone to rescue her. It was reminiscent of Drew Barrymore's Cinderella portrayal in "Ever After" and in an interview I saw with director Kenneth Branagh the interviewer state to him that the Prince is not rescuing Cinderella, they both are rescuing each other so it was more an equal thing than the Cinderella story we always had heard.

Some people are beyond stupid. ''I went to see ''Cinderella'', and I GOT ''Cinderella''. Now, I'm complaining because that's what I got''. I guess the title wasn't clear enough. I wonder. What do they expect when they go to see ''The Texas Chainsaw Massacre?''.

---

Some people are beyond stupid. ''I went to see ''Cinderella'', and I GOT ''Cinderella''. Now, I'm complaining because that's what I got''. I guess the title wasn't clear enough. I wonder. What do they expect when they go to see ''The Texas Chainsaw Massacre?''.

---

~
"Were all stories, in the end just make it a good one, eh?

A bunch of "neked" girls ripping chainsaws apart probably.

---

what is the point of seeing a movie with an old story without any really interested detail added t it

---

The point is to appreciate the cinematic talents on display from Branagh and the others who made the film. You may know the story, but you haven't seen it done in exactly this way before you've watched this film (note: I'm not saying the plot is original in any way).

Ancient Greeks, and everyone else, knew the plot for Sophocles' Oedipus play too, long before they ever went to see it, yet it became one of the most popular plays of all-time, and remains so to this day.

But at the end of the day, if you are insist upon having an original story, then this Cinderella film is not for you.

---

if you are insist upon having an original story, then this Cinderella film is not for you

---

that's exactly why i don't like it
cause its a copy of the original story
only few differences
plus many movies had been produced for the original one
but only if they made it away of the original storey i would appreciate it then
for example something like "another Cinderella story" it depends on the original storey but with a lot of difference

There's nothing wrong with a straightforward retelling of one of the most well-known and beloved stories of all-time. Why should Disney ruin the story of their most iconic character by adding some unnecessary twist? Alice in Wonderland, The Sorcerer's Apprentice and Maleficent were re-imaginings and they sucked to the point of becoming an abomination to their original predecessors. There's nothing wrong with the story of Cinderella. It has been a timeless tale since it was first originated. You can't reinvent a classic. If it isn't broken, then don't try to fix it!

We write the story

That point has been made here time and time again. There are some people here, who not only don't get it, but don't WANT to get it. I feel sorry for them, but I'm glad I'm not ONE of them. Their loss, not mine.

Agreed. Unless people are seeing the fairy tale for the first time in their lives, it's horribly boring.

The film received positive reviews from professional critics and from the general audience unlike the previous live-actions films that were re-imaginings. Enough said.

We write the story

The Cinderella story is a timeless classic for a reason.

Might the OP offer up an example of the "interesting detail" he wanted?

Better yet, write a new story where his "interesting detail" could be included.

Leave Cinderella alone. She did just fine without it. Better even.

I fully agree that the script is boring. I dont miss details added to the story (which is perfect since centuries), but details added to the script. For example good dialogue (this seems mainly desparately improvised) or skillfull dramatic scenes (those are just sadly bold). Its a shame that nobody seemed to care for the script, so at the end of the day they wasted great actors, camera, lighting and decor for nothing but being friendly (courageous they havent been).

Yes, the script was that boring that it received praised from a number of critics and the general audience alike. If the film was boring, then it wouldn't have been certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, nor would it have grossed $540M worldwide. It's a shame people can't appreciate a beautiful retelling of a classic story because they have the attention span of a retarded goldfish.

We write the story

I just find the script astoundingly boring, not the film. I loved to watch the CGI landscapes and the great costumes and decor, i found it very interesting how different world class actors handled the task to make the best out of it I fully appreciate the beauty of the pictures and the high quality of art that went into that movie, for example also the choreograhpy. But concerning the scipt we disagree: i dont like it even thouhg lots of people didnt seem to care to criticise it. Grand me the freedom to say so without my abiliy to pay attention being questioned.

You have to state why and what you would have done differently. Otherwise your "opinion" has no credibility.

This is an excellent film that fulfilled its purpose in a uniquely faithful manner.

do i look like a director
iam just a movie watcher
i watch i give an opinion
thats how its going

---

nothing but being friendly (courageous they havent been).

---

So what would you like to have seen in the script, exactly? Swearing? If you wrote the script, how would you "improve" it and make it "courageous?"I'm asking for specific details.

Im not in charge as a script doctor here, so we are talking about my personal taste, nothing else. Also let me emphasise that i love "a boys tale" and i'm aware of "creative differences" before Branagh took over: director Mark Romanek left the project (see trivia). So Weitz certainly had a hard time and there sure are reasons why this script is so bare, maybe its all they could finally agree on.
What i miss is not swearing, but inspiration. If i wrote the script, i wouldnt have changed the story at all, but i would have tried to create nice dialogue and to build dramaticly interesting scenes (as i expect from any script). Nice dialogue would help actors forming their characters, so they are not forced to improvise (as in the Carter scenes, where she constantly tells us what we allready see for ourselves). Good dialogue and good dramatism would also deliver the philosophical, psychologigal and moral messages the autor has for us, so we wouldnt have to hear them as bold voicover narration or just as a naively repeated claim (for exaple "show yourself how you really are", "be friendly and courageous").
Then there should be a lot more care on details, symbols and background. What about the twig she gets from her dead father? Why has the robe to be changed from pink to blue instead of just being blue? Why dont we hear anything more about the stepmothers story (even in her monologue all we learn is that she loved her first husband)? Why couldnt she sing the song allready in the secret garden, so it would be more plausible that she is known by that song later? What about the papillon (she could be in the woods observing butterflies when she meets the prince instead of just being incapable of controllig her horse)?
All of this would finally generate a point of view, a clue who is telling me this movie and why. It would be more than just lamely mimicking the Disney animation classic that proved to be accepted by large audiences, so it would require some more courage. Branagh showed that courage admirably time and again (with success and without), here he made no use of it, and he cetainly has reasons for that.
Think i made my point. Thanks for your interest.

---

Good dialogue and good dramatism would also deliver the philosophical, psychologigal and moral messages the autor has for us, so we wouldnt have to hear them as bold voicover narration or just as a naively repeated claim

---

The main purpose of fairy tales is to educate and teach moral messages to children.

If they didn't boldly state the messages in voiceover narration, most children would not be aware that those messages are there.

Well, what a waste for you.

The point was that the animated version had a lot of room for improvement, even by the standards of 1950s Disney.

The Angels Have the Phone Box

I do think they should have twisted the story quite a bit; made it more exciting.

Remaking it into something worth watching? I have never liked the original Disney Cinderella, I actually enjoyed this one. It was funnier and the main love interests actually had a fraction of personality and chemistry.

Everybody knows what happened to Jesus at the end of that particular story yet it continues to make snake oil salesmen absolutely disgusting amounts of personal wealth.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Flowers_(banker)

Although not representative of all who preach [some are genuinely just deluded] Others attempt to delude us.

I have to agree with the OP. I enjoy retellings of Cinderella when they add something new to it, or give it more depth. I feel like this version just took an old story and retold it without any additional innovation. Yes it was pleasant to watch, but truly the cartoon version had nothing wrong with it, and I'm more drawn to it for nostalgia.
I would like to see someone tackle Cinderella in a gritty way. More towards the original verions before they got "Disney'ed". I have seen some versions that attempted it, but none have been very widely successful.
Really though, there seems to be so much hate on here simply because the OP pointed out their opinion that seems to not be on track with the popular opinions. Which is always hilarious, since the lack of ability to be imaginative is the reason why this carbon copy was made.

I wouldn't go near a ''gritty Cinderella'' with a ten-foot pole. That's NOT what I want when I choose to see ''Cinderella''. If I want ''gritty'', I'll go elsewhere. So should everyone else.

---

More towards the original verions before they got "Disney'ed".

---

Ugh. I dislike when people say this because it's not true. Disney based their version on the Charles Perrault version from 1697. The "gritty" version you want is the Brothers Grimm version, which was published in 1812. Therefore, the Perrault telling was the "original" version. Nothing was "Disney'ed."

Also, a lot was added to this version that distinguished it from other versions. The first five minutes alone will tell you a lot was added. Most Cinderella stories begin with Cinders already a servant or with her father remarrying. We never get to see her mother. This version gave us that. Also, this is the only version where the stepmother finds the other glass slipper. This version also explained why the stepfamily did not recognize her at the ball, and also why the glass slippers did not turn back or fit anyone else. A lot was added.

Those who want ''gritty'' should go to a different movie. There are plenty of others to choose from.

1) There's nothing wrong with a traditional retelling of one of the most beloved fairy tales of all-time. Why on Earth should Disney change the story? They changed the story of Sleeping Beauty and that experiment failed miserably. You can't reinvent a classic. If it isn't broken, then don't try to fix it.

2) The 2015 live-action film wasn't a carbon copy of the original 1950 animated film. If you actually bothered to pay attention during the film, you would have noticed that there is a lot new additions that wasn't in the animated film. The live-action film explored the characters and the story that the animated film failed to do. Maybe you should watch both films side by side before making invalid accusations that the live-action film was a carbon copy of the original animated film.

3) The 1950 animated film and the 2015 live-action film were based on Charles Perrault's version which, in fact, pre-dated the Brother's Grimm version. You would have known that if you did your research, or even bothered to watch the credits.

4) Why should every single Disney live-action film be gritty? It's people like you that make me want to bang my head against a brick wall for such stupid comments. You want gritty? Go watch a horror movie and let Disney stick to the magic that we grew up with.

We write the story

---

3) The 1950 animated film and the 2015 live-action film were based on Charles Perrault's version which, in fact, pre-dated the Brother's Grimm version. You would have known that if you did your research, or even bothered to watch the credits.

---

It is widely debated on whether the charles perrault version was more true to the original story or if the grimm's was. It did start as a story told from village to village before being put to paper. Did you do your research?

Either way, I find it hilarious that people are freaking out that I have a different view on this topic.

I stand by my original post, feel free to disagree wholeheartedly. That is also your right, but my opinion is simply my opinion. It doesn't need to be popular, but it is mine.

I will not be going through to answer each posters comments individually, mainly because everyone made the same points (while attempting to attack me personally) and I don't feel like taking the time out of my day to argue opinions that are strongly set.

---

4) Why should every single Disney live-action film be gritty? It's people like you that make me want to bang my head against a brick wall for such stupid comments.

---

If you do this, please film it. THIS I would pay to watch, and I'd probably enjoy it if the commentary was shut off.

I have to agree. The characters were just as much of cardboard cut outs as their cartoon counterparts perhaps even more. They lacked depth, definition and most importantly good dialogue. Quite honestly the stepmother in the cartoon was a far more dangerous person than the movie version.

I am all for a perfect scene by scene remake but it's possible to do so without being banal and flat. The movie version should have added more to the cartoon version and not been a charmless imitation. (And I say this as someone who did not like the cartoon as a kid but it wins hands down)

How on Earth were the characters cardboard cut outs as their animated counterparts? The live-action film explored both the story and the characters more than the original 1950 animated film did. There was enough depth, definition and good dialogue to make the live-action film one of the best adaptations of the fairy tale. Maybe you should watch both films side by side without making invalid comments? I think so.

We write the story

I agree with you OP. Blancanieves is a completely different retelling of snow white, if that's what you all mean by "what you 'spect when iffin you go see three little pigs 'n you sees three little pigs and youz like i din't like it cuz it were only three little pigs why you complain for huh" I think the retarded goldfish was the one who made this movie.

More like the one who ''made'' the last post.

I'm wondering the same thing, they basically LA remade their own cartoon
Today almost all fairy tales are given a contemporary makeover, not that cinderella presents a material with a lot of potential, but still, they didn't even try.

Worst yet, so many good actors wasted

___
Anyone who has ever read any spoilers,
knows that Winter Is Coming

Why should they try to give the fairy tale a contemporary makeover? You can't change perfection.

We write the story

I agree that Ella's origins with her mother and father added to the story. I also loved the little mice as I have a pet mouse of my own.

I think some of you are taking this rather too seriously. It's just a movie. Everyone doesn't have to feel the same way about it. I thought it was a sweet story. I enjoyed it. I liked the fact that Cinderella and the prince actually talked. I liked the dynamic between the prince and his father. I liked the dynamic between the prince and the Captain. I liked the way the magic was subtle instead of the whole story relying on it heavily. But that doesn't mean anyone who didn't enjoy it is an idiot. Different people have different tastes, and that's okay. And while the whole point of message boards is to actually discuss films, that doesn't mean anyone who doesn't have some profound reason for liking or dis-liking a movie is a total loser. Have a nice day, everyone.