#Cinderella 2015 hate

[artist-issues]

Hi. I really appreciate you taking the time to analyze both the 1950 Cinderella and the 2015 Cinderella, then make points backed up by what is actually in each of the films. A lot of people don’t take the time to do those things.

As someone who also likes to do those things and is very passionate about Cinderella, I’d like to help you appreciate Cinderella (2015) more for what it is—and maybe the whole fairy tale in general. Because I think you’re completely misreading the Cinderella story, what the message of the 1950 movie was, and most importantly, what the true strengths of the character are.

Your post is such an earnest, genuine swing and near miss. You’ll forgive me for offering an alternate and maybe equally-unhinged perspective below the cut.

The main point of what I’m going to be talking about is this: OG Cinderella’s strength was never in her desire and willingness to free herself from abuse. OG Cinderella’s strength is in her ability to be kind, courageous, and selfless in the face of abuse.

That is true whether you mean “Charles Perrault’s Cinderella,” or “Walt a Disney’s Cinderella” when you say “OG Cinderella.”

Whether the story is about a girl who would be free if not for her circumstances, or exercises freedom in the way she acts in spite of circumstances, is an important distinction.

What I think a lot of people don’t understand is that Cinderella, in the original, most popular versions of the fairy tale, is the heiress to her father’s estate. Because neither he nor his new wife have sons, when she comes of age, she will have her own independence and ownership of resources.

(Disney’s adaptations are based on Charles Perrault’s version of the fairy tale: it was written in 17th-century France, for French audiences, where these laws about inheritance would have been understood without needing to be said. )

That means something. It means that she is not trapped there forever. In fact, in most versions of the fairy tale, her father isn’t even dead. It means that the character of Cinderella is choosing to be kind and to serve her stepfamily despite how unfairly they are treating her. That is a character trait. That is something that has to be displayed, regardless of the adaptation, or else it’s not “Cinderella,” it’s just a bad OC that the writers are calling “Cinderella.”

If you place all the emphasis on how she’s a little girl and she doesn’t know to stand up for herself, she’s got no friends and no chance to better her life, she’s trapped, etc., then you lose the strength of character that is only revealed by her choice to stay there and be kind.

That is what the Cinderella 2015 movie understood so well. It’s why they made the changes they made.

The main point of Cinderella 1950 was: “Have faith in your dreams and they will come true.”

The main point of Cinderella 2015 was: “Have courage and be kind and you’ll be able to see the world as it could be.”

They’re different words but the implications of what “true strength” is are the exact same—because what is faith? Faith is believing in something (BASED ON EVIDENCE) and acting on that belief, regardless of how you feel or what circumstances you’re in. Cinderella believes in the good results of kindness and love in both films. She acts on that belief, no matter how badly they treat her, and she’s not only awarded with magic and marriage, but awarded with contentment in any circumstance.

So now that you hopefully understand why I (and Cinderella 2015) are coming at this the way we’re coming at this, let me go into your other points.

hhhheeeere we go.

1. Cinderella’s Commitment to Dead Parents

I would re-phrase this point to: “Cinderella’s commitment to love.”

In Cinderella 1950, she didn’t have as much of a surface emphasis on love for her parents—that’s because this is a 1950s-era fairy tale, when nuance was still capitalized on. We’re meant to infer that she misses and greatly esteems the memory of her parents from her mother’s dress. But in a 2015-era fairy tale, audiences need more evidence than that because we don’t like nuance that much anymore.

So they build in more screen-time with the birth-parents—and kill like three birds with one stone, characterization-wise, at the same time! Because Ella’s parents teach her to care for the little folk (her “subjects) of the house and care for the servants well, too. That sets her up to be a Queen at heart—she’s constantly given little moments of scolding Gus for being greedy, removing Lucifer from bothering mice, and warning Mr. Goose to be careful of oncoming carriages.

Her parents also, of course, impress upon her the importance of having courage and being kind above all else. (Not just in the big death scene with the mom—There’s tiny moments, like where Ella’s father murmurs to the doctor, “it must have been very hard for you,” after caring for the dying mother because he’s kind no matter what terrible circumstances he is in, himself—Ella does the same exact thing later when the man comes to the door to tell her that her father has died.)

Then it’s her father who connects the house with the idea of love for Ella when he says: “I always leave a part of me behind. And your mother is here too, though you see her not. She’s the very heart of this place.” The conversation, in-context, is that he is about to be absent, but he doesn’t want her to think of the house as empty of love—he wants it to be a place where she feels safe and still, symbolically, in the loving arms of her parents.

When he dies, that is all Ella has left of that love. And where else would she go, anyway? She still has her animal friends to care for. Until the household staff is dismissed, she has them, too. She was raised to think of herself as the “queen” of that little kingdom, and to take care of everyone living there. And you’re missing another very important fact—and another one that points to the true Strength of OG Cinderella—she actually cares about the stepfamily.

In 2015’s changes this is more evident—and it should be, because as much as the original is wonderful, remember, the spotlight is supposed to be on Cinderella’s strength to choose selfless kindness, not on her status as an abused prisoner.

So instead of just saying nice things and being polite when she’s ordered around, 2015 Ella does more than the bare minimum. She gives up her room to her stepsisters. She responds graciously to their insults about her hair. She engages them in conversation about the ball and helps them get dressed. She assures them (when she doesn’t have to) that she won’t try to ruin their plans at the ball. She very clearly cares about their comfort—and pities them—and remember that her father asked her to promise to be kind to them even if they were “trying.” Compound that with Cinderella knowing that her kindness is her greatest strength.

What I’m saying is, there are more reasons than just “my dead parents used to live in this house so I’m staying even when I’m abused.” She’s staying because:

She’s keeping her promise to her father to love her stepfamily through kindness, no matter how they act. (Remember, she is the one who encouraged her father to make them part of their family if it would lead to his happiness, because she is selfless.)

She is caring for her “kingdom,” taking responsibility for the little folk she’s cared for all her life: the household staff and then the animals, and the house itself.

She is staying where she feels the love of her father and mother. She believes what her father says, that her mother is at the heart of this place and he leaves a part of himself behind. The movie takes great care to remind the audience that Ella’s family has lived in that house for generations, and that the mother decorated it. She puts the personification of her parents in everything—even her dress. Everything is orchestrated to help you remember that Ella stays and hangs on to things for love, not for herself.

That last one might seem odd, but once you accept it, you realize that that is why she is okay to leave the house at the end. Because she has new love—the Prince’s love. (Plus, side-note, you also must remember that they re-iterate—the stepfamily leaves Cinderella’s house at the end.)

On to the next point.

2. Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother Tests Her Instead of Comforting Her

This is a really big misread. I totally understand where you’re coming from, but it’s a very, very big misread and misunderstanding of the Fairy Godmother’s whole role.

Remember, the spotlight is on Ella’s strength of faith in kindness.

If the movie were about the Fairy Godmother, sure, have her comfort Ella. Devote the whole scene to a consoling conversation, where the Fairy Godmother assures Cinderella that she’s not a ragged servant girl, she doesn’t deserve to be treated this way, she’s been so brave, etc.

But the movie—the story, the original fairy tale—is not about who the Fairy Godmother is. It’s about who Cinderella is. Just like the story is not about how to seize the opportunity to escape abuse—it’s about how strong faith, goodness, and kindness can be.

The truth of the matter is, in Charles Perrault’s fairy tale, and many versions like it, the emphasis of the Fairy Godmother is not on her Fairy-ness. It’s on her Godmother status. It’s not about her role as a magical eucatastrophe saving the day. It’s about her role as a godmother—do you know what that was, back in the day of the fairy tale? A godmother is responsible for the spiritual and moral upbringing of the child.

That’s right. She’s not there to bring comfort. She’s there to prove to Cinderella that her faith in kindness and goodness was worth having all along. She’s the promised result of staying kind and good.

In the original fairy tale, the Fairy Godmother doesn’t pop in and say, “you shall go to the ball,” just out of the kindness of her heart and because Cinderella’s had a rough time of it. She says, “but be a good girl, and you shall go to the ball.” And in the 1950 film, the first thing the Fairy Godmother says—the very first thing—is “nonsense, child! If you’d lost all your faith, I couldn’t be here—and here I am!”

That means Cinderella’s goodness is a direct cause of her going to the ball. Instead of just getting a cosmic reward for being abused, Cinderella has—what’s that ladies and gentlemen?—agency in her own rescue. She chooses to be good and kind against all odds, and she’s rewarded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams for it.

That’s what makes the Fairy Godmother so great in both movies. She’s not there to pat Cinderella on the head and say “there, there.” She’s there to restore Cinderella’s faith. What could be more comforting than that, as a side bonus? It’s not just empowering, it’s comforting, and it’s a great lesson to pass on to everyone—there’s literally no way to make the story or the characters stronger than to tie the Fairy Godmother’s actions to the rewarding of Cinderella’s actions.

3. The Diminished Horror of the Dress Scene

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this one because I know you already admitted it was nitpicky, but I understand, I get it. It’s not played with the same emphasis on fear as the 1950s one was, I agree.

But remember, the 2015 one still portrayed this scene as horrible—it just returned the emphasis more on how her stepmother is determined to re-define who Cinderella is. That’s the most horrible part. So she does that by literally trying to dismantle the thing that Ella associates with her mother—a foundational part of her motives and identity—and then caps it off with: “a ragged servant girl—because that is what you are. And that is what you will always be.”

The scene is setting up this contrast: the stepmother thinks she can choose what Cinderella is. By making her wear rags and do the work of servants and treating her like a slave, she thinks she can twist a girl who is more beautiful and good than herself or her two daughters into something ugly. But she can’t. She has no power over who Cinderella is—and she doesn’t even have any power over who she is to Cinderella, which is emphasized at the end of the movie when Ella firmly tells her, “you are not, nor will you ever be, my mother.”

4. Cinderella’s “Escape.”

I need to take a breath too. Because boy, do I understand getting passionate about this part of the story. It’s the climax. It’s the defining moment for Cinderella.

And 2015 enhances it.

Assuming you’ve read this far and read that initial part where I explained that the emphasis is all on Ella’s strength of character. You can probably guess the argument I’m going to make here.

Ella choosing to be content, and knowing that she has the superpower of being kind, courageous, and selflessly loving no matter WHAT, is so much more impactful than screaming through a keyhole at some mice.

You have to understand. You just have to, it’s too important. Why are mice in the movies at all? In either of them? In either of them?!

Don’t you understand? Cinderella 2015 understood. OG Cinderella isn’t just friends with mice because they’re all she’s got. She’s friends with mice (in 2015) before the stepfamily ever gets there because she is kind to everyone and everything.

THAT IS HER SUPERPOWER.

She is just selflessly, indiscriminately, unashamedly kind. No matter what. Doesn’t matter if she’s being kind to the humblest little dirt-crawling mice—or the nastiest, cruelest stepfamily. She’s just kind, no matter what.

And if she had not been, then the mice would not look out for her, in either movie. In either movie. Because both movies are putting emphasis on her faith in being kind and courageous no matter what. That’s what saves her—not screaming through a keyhole and coming up with escape ideas and running down the stairs fast enough.

She doesn’t need to be despairing—she’s not giving up—because her goal was never escape. It was always to hang on to faith. And she did that, and it saved her. Her faith was rewarded. You have to stop seeing Cinderella’s circumstances as so powerful.

The point of the story is that she is stronger than her circumstances—that strength comes from faith, and it looks like a choice to be kind and self-sacrificial, not self-freeing.

Then the reward for self-sacrifice happens to be freedom. Not just physical, situational freedom—freedom of mind, of an oppressed spirit, of negative emotions—because she’s content in her ability to love and sacrifice. It’s an ability that she prizes, and that she knows her stepfamily doesn’t have—they can’t sacrifice for others, they can’t truly love, so she pities them, not herself. That’s why she can dance and sing in an attic when every part of her circumstance is horrible—because in her darkest hour she’s still herself. She’s still got her superpower. Nothing can take away her ability to be kind, and self-sacrificing, and even forgiving. That’s why the Prince loves her. That’s her real strength.

You guys are taking all the actual power of Cinderella away by missing that, and you’re doing it all in the name of empowering her. It’s ironic, and it’s super sad.

The changes made in Cinderella 2015 are truer to the 1950 Cinderella, and the real strengths of the classical fairy tale, than any of the arguments for Cinderella’s “willingness to fight for her freedom.” You’re right—it does take away the cruelty of her situation, because no situation is more powerful than her faith.

THAT is why it is the only good Live Action Disney Remake.

(Tagging people who might appreciate this and realize they weren’t wrong for liking this version: @aeinridi , @pan-pixie, @cannedbubbles , @fluffypotatey , @rosiewitchescottage and if you don’t appreciate it or care…oh well, it’s just a tag to a long post you may disagree with, life will go on.)

UNNECESSARY AND UNHINGED RANT ABOUT CINDERELLA'S CHARACTER FROM CINDERELLA (2015) INCOMING

Lemme talk about Cinderella from Cinderella (2015) for a bit actually yeah because these changes to my girl completely baffle me

She has friends now

Goes outside on her own

Says the only reason why she's staying is because it's her parent's house- bruh.

All of this takes away (+ more reasons down the cut) from the true cruelty of OG!Cinderella's backstory and how it all connects so well to inform you of her character and the actions she takes

OG!Cinderella has been indoctrinated into accepting her life as a maid to her step family since she was a small child. She is never seen going outside of the house besides the night at the ball. The only friends she had were random animals around her she couldn't even fully converse with. She had no other human perspective on her situation or how to get out of it. It makes sense why she's just taking her stepmother's tyranny while holding everything in because this isolation and neglect is all she knows. This is the entire limited scope of her world. A sad reality to many cases of abuse in real life.

And they just. Erased all of this for some. Reason???

The night at the ball was a big deal because she literally NEVER gets to go out. This is the only time she interacts with the outside world aside from the ending. The impact of that was HUGE in the original movie. The new one just cheapened that imo by implying she goes out in town and talks to others regularly. This event was an impossible, fantastical dream come true to someone who is never treated as anything but a servant to everyone she knows.

Basically OG!Cinderella has it way worse which is what makes the ball such a huge deal in the first place.

Third point I don't think I need to explain how Cinderella staying in her abusive home bc the house is "hers to love now that her parents are dead" is not a good character change and doesn't make sense. I would understand if her dad was alive and insisting on staying, but he is GONE. It is a building you grew up in sure, but that's all it is. Not something you sacrifice your wellbeing for. So that's a shit reason they didn't need to make up to say why this character is stuck in her abusive household. The isolation and years of gaslighting were enough. (Also showing how much of a frightening presence and manipulative villain Lady Tremaine is.)

And she sure left it quick after getting hitched lol

The Fairy Godmother having the audacity to test Cinderella with that "oh I'm a poor old woman and I want some milk please" nonsense

Not very godmotherly of her in this version. 🥴 The Fairy Godmother appeared in the original to offer pure comfort to Cinderella in a time of desperate need, when this resilient and kind spirit finally reached her breaking point. The dress, slippers, pumpkin carriage, and magic were all given freely as a present to make her feel better at least for one night.

Meanwhile this goofy ass Godmother has the audacity to be like "hey is she gonna be nice or not even though she's crying in tattered, recently destroyed clothing- I need to see that or else she doesn't get the magic juice". Like why did this become a way to test her morality all of a sudden? Why did you need something from her to give up the magic goods?? It's not even a good test she just walked a couple steps and poured some milk in a bowl,,,

Idk man they made their relationship transactional for no reason which taints the original purpose of this scene imo. The original Fairy Godmother already KNEW Cinderella was kind without having to make sure by disguising herself as a rancid old lady. 😭 Weird and unnecessary addition.

Kinda nitpicky here but this film did not at all match the terror of the torn dress scene which really shows you how horrifying and humiliating it was to Cinderella

Comparison

AND THE BIGGEST OFFENDER: THE WAY SHE "ESCAPED".

I NEED TO TAKE A BREATH

BECAUSE LIKE. WHAT WAS THAT.

Original Cinderella, seeing a real chance of escape from her abuse, uses everything in her possession to do so. She's yelling for the mice to get the key, to get Bruno to chase away the cat, running down to meet the prince's attendants to make sure they get the proof of her identity from her- and that moment she oh-so-casually pulled out the second slipper??? SEEING HER STEPMOTHER'S SLACKED JAW??? GAGGED US ALL.

ICONIC

But 2015. Bitch. What is going on. She gets locked up and easily accepts her doom. She just twirls and sings in her prison like a dunce because cINDerELLa wAs aLReADy cONTenT wIth her sMaLL mOMEnts oF hAPPIneSs anD dREamS wItH thE pRinCE.

Just. Gives up.

Not the mice begging her to get up and save herself come on now

The mice have to do their best on their own to push open her window so the prince and his crew hear her on time.

And yeah, all she had to do was open a window.

WHAT. WHY. HOW. WAS THIS??? MORE EMPOWERING???

1950: use your brain to fight to the very end

2015: quit while you're still ahead, or don't try you just gotta dance and sing all pretty then someone will come along and save you

I'm sorry, but for a production that was so critical of the notion of "Cinderella just waited around for a prince to save her"...is that not literally what they changed the ending to?

You wanna talk about lack of agency in princess stories well here you go 😭

You know what's sad about all this in the end is this is still the best recent live action Disney remake imo LOL

Anyways hello if you've made it all the way down here I rest my case

[cjbolan]

Real talk: do people like “Cinderella”(2015) BECAUSE it is less progressive and less feminist ?

[seafoamseashell]

I feel like I'm the only one who liked live-action L.ittle Mermaid.

[my-bard-is-too-bardalicious]

Finished 4th rewatch of season 3 pt1, and there is no way that Tilly Arnold isn't connected to Sophie!!! She is so evil stepmother coded, and that convo she was having with her solicitor?!?! That could totally be about Sophie's father and his will or whatever (haven't read the book and don't plan on it, but I know it's the Cinderella trope).

At the very least, that scene with the solicitor is important in some way. I doubt that they would put it in for no reason (though it is possible)

Lastly, just the icing on my theory cake, I think she's trying to fall pregnant with Benedict's child and trap him into marrying her

[artist-issues]

People are telling me I hate all remakes except Cinderella (2015.) I resent that. I’ll have you know I liked the new Planet of the Apes franchise, too.

[idiosyncraticrednebula]

Tbh, the princes in the Disney Princess LA remakes don't have a reason to be there anymore. They have been rendered useless in these stories since now there seems to be a much heavier focus on the independent and tough aspect of the princess, which is why the romance no longer has a place in them the way they used to back then. You can cut them out and these movies will still work. They are only included because they were part of the original movie, but when you take the more recent princess movies into account and what they are now about, which is along the same lines as the LA remakes, their presence is pretty damn unnecessary.

[ophelialoveshandsomemen]

Say what you will about Van Helsing 2004; hate it, love it, be indifferent, But the All-Hallow's masquerade ball went sooooo hard and it had zero right to do so! It's a fun, campy, monster mash movie with wonderfully dated ( and expensive) cgi and non-stop action meant to be a popcorn flick one takes out to watch around spooky season. And it has this* chef's kiss* GORGEOUS 6 minute sequence plopped arbitrarily in the second act, which unexpectedly surpasses nearly every other ball in the last 30+ years of film( notable exception being the Cinderella 2015 ball) for literally no reason other than to be dramatic af.

Like feast your eyes on this Gothic masterpiece!!! Who doesn't want to immediately live in this picture?!??

They used those candles with oil in them so that they would have real candles, real string orchestra( I believe), probably around 100 real life extras( something which is tragically absent in modern film), said extras are all in beautiful fully decked-out costumes( which are in luxuriously dark colours, but nearly no fully black, another thing you cannot say for much modern cinema), REAL CIRQUE DU SOLEIL PERFORMERS for all the acrobatics!!!! Hell, instead of filming in a sound stage, where they could control the reverb and the acoustics and the size of the set and the bloody lighting ( they apparently had a heck of a time emulating the firelight for this sequence) and the temperature( it's very cold in stone churches!) better, they filmed in a Baroque church in Prague! As I said, peak dramatic splendour, jfc...

Think about that a second...They filmed a vampire masquerade in a Baroque Catholic Church( St. Nicholas' in Lesser Town, if you were curious) with amazing over-the-top acoustics and marble statues and real, tiled floors and marble pillars and a choir loft which they very much utilized, covered the pipe organ and the altar with a grand brocade curtain so it wouldn't be so obviously a, you know, a church! And there's a gold gilt elevated and canopied pulpit into which they put two vampire kiddies for, again, the sake of being dramatic.

And the costumes! They remind me of the 25th anniversary Phantom of the Opera Masquerade costumes. Same quality, like they're old, well-cared-for costumes pulled out of a warehouse, instead of fast industry churn-outs. With lots of trim and colour and masks and lace and feathers and..just...ugh.. they are all perfect! Just look at all the head pieces on the ladies and the hats on all the gentleman ( save Dracula of course) and the powdered wigs on the musicians. ANNNNDD! The dresses are historically correct!!!!!! It's the 80's bustle era! Nobody does the 80's bustle era in film anymore and it's a bummer. Oh and one other thing! Anna's ( and other women's) hair, at least here in the ball, is also historically accurate because it's all pinned up! None of those fucken modern beachwaves at a ball! Everybody's got updo's!

Gah, I swear, Dracula in his gold cloak really does things to me in this scene!

By the way, the acrobatics are bonkers in here for just background stuff!! Especially the random guys on unicycles and the dude playing the violin whilst standing on a ball...Like....WHAT?

Anyways, all this to say, that this masquerade ball feels sooo real and tangible and because of that it blows every other film out of the water, and no, I will not change my mind!!!!!

Here's a few more gifs, bcuz, why the hell not, this scene is sexy as fuu*ck?

Alright I need to go to bed now.

[femmeprincessjulia]

Ranking Cinderella Adaptations Based On How Much I Want The Dress

(In my own personal opinion, these are just the ones I like the best.)

10. Cinderella (2021) : Everyone's hated on this movie enough, so I'm just going to focus on the dress. In theory, I could see what they were going for. If it was just a fitted bustier, a hip-hugging skirt and a bustle, then I think it would have succeeded. But it's just underwhelming. That's all it is. Underwhelming. 3/10

9. Into The Woods (2014) : There's not much to talk about with this dress. I love the color choice, and I think the way it moves is pretty. But it just feels too simple. I know it's a dress that isn't crucial to the plot or anything, but it's still just a little too underwhelming. But I do think the sleeves are cute. 4/10

8. Once Upon A Time (2011-2018) : I think my issues with this dress are similar to my issues with Into The Woods. It just doesn't have the "wow" factor I'm searching for. It's a beautiful dress, and I would certainly wear it. But it just feels like the most generic Cinderella dress. Blue, sparkly, princess-y. Still cute though. 4/10

7. Another Cinderella Story (2008) : I'm a sucker for a red dress, and I truly adore this one. The neckline isn't my favorite, but I love the layering and the ruffles. It's such a daring take for a Cinderella dress, but it's something I would definitely wear. It looks like it would be fun to dance in. 6/10

6. Cinderella (1950) : Yes, it's a classic. It's simplistic, but so magical. The scene where her dress changes is one of my absolute favorites of all time. In this case, I love the simplicity. It really makes her stand out. I dreamed of this dress so much as a kid. 7/10

5. Ever After (1998) : Maybe I'm biased, because this is one of my favorite Cinderella adaptations, but I do adore this dress. While the time period is not my favorite in terms of silhouette, this dress still feels magical and dreamy. Empire waists and a slender fit aren't my type, but I would wear it simply to feel ethereal. I mean, the EMBROIDERY? The WINGS? All gorgeous and stunning. 8/10

4. A Cinderella Story (2004) : Yeah, it's a very simple dress. But it's absolutely breathtaking. I want to get married in this dress. Something about it is just so angelic. I feel like it should be paired with wings too. The femininity in this dress is something I truly adore. 8/10

3. Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella (1997) : Is it costume-y? Yes. Is it made of two clashing materials? Yes. Would I sell my soul to the devil for the chance to wear this dress? Also yes. I don't care how cliché it is. The sweetheart neckline, the opera gloves, the little bustle in the back, it's all so cute and just feels like a little girl's princess dream. Plus, I love the shade of light blue. 9/10

2. The Slipper and the Rose (1976) : Shockingly, I haven't seen this film. But I truly should, because the costume design is absolutely gorgeous. It all takes inspiration from the rococo period. My bias takes hold again, it seems. Sure, it's a lot of frills and pink, but that's exactly what I look for in a dress. If I was going to a rococo ball, this is what I'd be wearing. 9/10

1. Cinderella (2015) : The almighty. The most beautiful dress to ever be created. The dress that lingers in my dreams. Nothing can surpass this dress. Words can't even describe how wonderful it is. I do believe this dress is the most magical of all. It is absolute perfection from head to toe. Scratch what I said earlier about getting married in Hillary Duff's dress. I'm getting married in Lily James' dress. 1000000/10

[sidsinning]

no bc i refuse to be gaslit by people who think this scene is good for cinderella's character its literally cindy going "head empty no thoughts"

[suffering-asthmatic-tifosi]

I was tagged in this like 3 times lmao. Thank you @sillycartoonhozier @fisahli and @man-i-love-folklore yall r the best 😽😽

My 10:

No pressure tags: @papaya-twinks @papayadays @pierremcguire

Movie Tag Game

I was tagged by @starthecozy and @tra-golden. Thank you so much! Here they are in no particular order.

Rules: without naming them, post a gif from ten of your favorite films and then tag ten people to do the same.

Tagging: @fantasyinallforms @lola-theshowgrl @yacrimago @amloveabledeathmo @shantismurf @lucigoo @amethystviolist @shipper47 and anyone else who wants to play!

[thyme-in-a-bubble]

a list of some spring movies/series 🌷

spring is here!! and so is your friendly neighbourhood little organisation freak of a goblin to give you a list of some spring movies and series. as always, just close your eyes and point somewhere on this little list, or even put the numbers in a generator and go with whatever the result is ♡

summer | autumn | winter

🐝 ‧₊˚ ⋅ movies ⋅˚₊‧

mary poppins (1964)

the sound of music (1965)

aristocats (1970)

alla vi barn i bullerbyn (1986)

my neighbour totoro (1988)

kiki's delivery service (1989)

a league of their own (1992)

the secret garden (1993)

pride and prejudice (1995/2005)

whisper of the heart (1995)

clueless (1995)

my best friend’s wedding (1997)

parent trap (1998)

10 things i hate about you (1999)

notting hill (1999)

she's all that (1999)

but i’m a cheerleader (1999)

bring it on (2000)

miss congeniality (2000)

spiritied away (2001)

someone like you (2001)

the wedding planner (2001)

legally blonde (2001)

princess diaries (2001 + 2004)

spy kids (2001-2003)

maid in manhatten (2002)

bend it like beckham (2002)

tuck everlasting (2002)

school of rock (2003)

how to lose a guy in 10 days (2003)

something’s gotta give (2003)

13 going on 30 (2004)

finding neverland (2004)

howl’s moving castle (2004)

saving face (2004)

the notebook (2004)

imagine me and you (2005)

nanny mcphee (2005)

penelope (2006)

miss potter (2006)

step up (2006)

she’s the man (2006)

bridge to terabithia (2007)

enchanted (2007)

atonement (2007)

stardust (2007)

ps i love you (2007)

wild child (2008)

made of honour (2008)

ondine (2009)

bride wars (2009)

valentine’s day (2010)

leap year (2010)

easy a (2010)

from up on poppy hill (2011)

jane eyre (2011)

crazy, stupid, love (2011)

what to expect when you’re expecting (2012)

remember sunday (2013)

saving mr banks (2013)

about time (2013)

now you see me (2013 + 2016)

love, rosie (2014)

testament of youth (2014)

paddington (2014 + 2017)

far from the madding crowd (2015)

burnt (2015)

brooklyn (2015)

cinderella (2015)

the man from u.n.c.l.e. (2015)

lady chatterley's lover (2015/2022)

creed franchise (2015-2023)

me before you (2016)

mother’s day (2016)

this beautiful fantastic (2016)

the light between oceans (2016)

paterson (2016)

how to be single (2016)

hidden figures (2016)

gifted (2017)

dunkirk (2017)

ocean’s eight (2018)

life itself (2018)

peter rabbit (2018)

christopher robin (2018)

tomb raider (2018)

set it up (2018)

crazy rich asians (2018)

spider-verse movies (2018-)

1917 (2019)

the art of racing in the rain (2019)

can you keep a secret? (2019)

booksmart (2019)

someone great (2019)

endings, beginnings (2019)

emma (2020)

enola holms (2020-)

the last letter from your lover (2021)

the world to come (2021)

we live in time (2024)

🌼 ‧₊˚ ⋅ series ⋅˚₊‧

little house on the prairie (1974-1983)

moomin valley (1990-1992)

greys anatomy (2005-)

gossip girl (2007-2012)

skins (2007-2013)

the great british bake off (2010-)

new girl (2011-2018)

brooklyn nine-nine (2013-2021)

the fosters (2013-2018)

the 100 (2014-2020)

jane the virgin (2014-2019)

outlander (2014-)

the musketeers (2014-2016)

grace and frankie (2015-2022)

poldark (2015-2019)

critical role (2015-)

howards end (2017)

she's gotta have it (2017-2019)

the bold type (2017-2021)

queer eye (2018-)

crash landing into you (2019)

the witcher (2019-)

dickinson (2019-2021)

sex education (2019-2023)

bridgerton (2020-)

ted lasso (2020-2023)

the pursuit of love (2021)

nevertheless (2021)

abbott elementary (2021-)

flatshare (2022)

[your-ne1ghbor]

How To Train Your Dragon "Remake" Review (FW: Long Post/Spoilers)

How To Train Your Dragon is a very personal film to me, as it is to many other people. To say that it was a phase is an understatement. To this day, the franchise has been very much an inspiration for a lot of things I like to do, read, or watch in the media. I still have a lot of the merchandise for when the 3rd movie came out. I remember drawing my "oh so original dragon ocs" that obviously was just Toothless reskinned. I still vividly remember going to the library when I was a kid and picking up cases of the Rise of Berk show, more specifically the episodes with the screaming death and when hookfang almost died back possibly around 2012 to watching Race to the Edge on Netflix either in 2016 or when it was releasing its final episodes in 2018. It got me into a lot of fantasy books like Wings of Fire or the Rainbow Magic series, plus many more, plus made me believe that dragons were real for the longest time…anyways-

And to this day, I love to rewatch both the movies and the show on occasion, either because I’m bored or just for comfort when I’m down. This franchise is very dear to me. The swelling music, the memorable characters, the worldbuilding all touched to my younger self personally. Hell, I even read some of the original books just out of curiosity, and it was because I watched this film that caused me to want to read the original source material.  

When I heard about it getting a remake, needless to say was that I was very…very worried. One thing that I was hoping for when it was announced was to reintroduce some characters from the shows, like Heather or Dagur into the movies so we would get a more onscreen appearance from them. Since they were going for a more diverse berk with people from multiple tribes, it wasn’t off the table for me to image Heather being apart of the Hooligian tribe with Dagur being apart of the dragon army that would later in the second film become a good guy. Almost like the same arc in the Race to the Edge show, however would be different enough so it is something new. Which is all I wanted for to remake. To bring something fresh to the table that previously wasn’t in the original film. When the trailer came out, both the teaser and official…it was not what we got. Instead it looked like a copy and pace of the original film, which made me a bit more irritated. I’m not saying that I hate live action versions of animated films, I just want them to do things differently and actually do more with the source material and make it more into an adaptation, instead of a remake. There are good live action remakes out there like the 2015 Cinderella from Disney, or the 2010 Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton to name a few. 

Needless to say, I still ended up watching the film. Now I’m not making a review on this film because I liked the original film and wanted to see how horrible it was to prove that the original film was better, since lets be honest, we didn’t need a live action remake on this movie. I did want to see it, more so out of curiosity on how they were going to adapt one of my faviorate childhood movies on screen again, and I got that wish when my aunt decided to take me to go see it as a birthday present. I don’t want this review to have nostalgia glasses on, I want to go over the stuff that I liked with what they added to the stuff that I didn’t like/what they removed and try to be as fair as I can between both films to the best of my abilities as this film stays fresh in my head.

The Movie

The film opens up the same as the original with some key changes. Something that I liked about the opening was not just the music, but also the logo itself. Dreamworks back them before they changed it actually added fun things for the guy on the moon to do. Although he didn’t do anything here, if you squint hard enough, you can see toothless flying in the background. It is a easy to miss part of the beginning of the movie, however it gets you more immersed into the movie before the logo fades into the water. Although I could have missed it, I didn’t see that detail in the film, however they did keep the part of the log fading into water part which I liked a lot. I’m mentioning this little detail because these little details are what makes the original film such a good watch. And you’re going to see why a bit later. 

We then are introduced to Hiccup’s voice. No shame to the voice actor, they are trying their best with the huge role they were trying to fill. However, the voice of the original Hiccup is so unique that hearing it being played by someone else was jarring to me. Mason Thames performance of hiccup is okay though.I don’t want to hate him on that, since again, it a huge shoe to fill (heh get it?), and they at least tried. There was some parts where some of his lines were hard to hear, either because he is saying it quietly or that the music is very loud to where I cannot hear him. Overall, he did an alright performance for the role he was given in the film. I would also like to mention that the sarcasm part of his character is somewhat not really there or just doesn’t hit as hard for me as it did in the original, which is a shame because it was the best part of the original's character.

The beginning of the film is the same as the original, with some line changes here and there. Off topic, but they should have gotten someone else to play gobber. He doesn’t have that deep voice in the original, and is often drowned out from the music. I wouldn’t say his performance was bad, I’m just saying they either get someone to do a deeper voice for him, or  not have the music to be so fucking loud. 

Off topic, again,  one thing I do not like about the film is unfortunately the music. At some parts it is super loud to where it is off beat to the scene playing in front of you, and it is very..very noticable. Although it is for adding or removing scenes, it just didn’t work. They should’ve went with a more different yet familiar sound track than obviously copy and pacing the music with a few noticeable key differences, almost like the Lion King Remake…

yeesh-

When we are introduced to Astrid, played by Nico Parker, she is mentioned to be the leader of the fire guard, yk the people who put out the fires in the original film.. Needless to say, for what they were “fixing her” to be a more independent person, which  they were wrong for changing the character, I don’t see her as another Astrid, . Although she shares the name,  I’d say she gives off more heather vibes than Astrid vibes. This version of her is a bit more intense and aggressive, with a underlining softens to it, almost like Heather in a way, moreso when she was upset, however it is not/doesn’t feel like Astird in my opinion. Astrid did have a sharp personality, and of course wanted to kill the dragon (They gave dragon training a new name, which I did like however names escape me so I don’t remember lol), however she has a understanding for Hiccup and his empathy for dragons after that scene of them flying in the sky and finding the dragon queens nest. I will get to those scenes in a moment, but this Astrid character is not that much samey as the original however there was some new scenes they added which I actually liked, but I’ll get to that in a moment. Although I’m not entirely sure if I like this Astrid, as I said, I liked the new added scenes, and the context that she came from nothing. I don’t hate it, but I don’t like it either if that makes sense. She’s just, alright. 

For the rest of the other dragon riders, I’ll go by quickly. Ruff and Tuff aren’t that annoying in the film as they are in the original film/as silly. They didn’t have fun stuff, and they also changed Ruff’s personality to be more chiller than her devious counter part. They aren’t as mischievous as the original counterparts, which is unfortunate since it is a key part of their characters. I know a lot of people within the fandom has spoke of their annoyance of the Twins, but its literally the point of their characters- And frankly, It is quite charming since I dont get annoyed by them, I found a lot of their scenes together both in the movie and show to be funny to me personally, and its kinda disharnenting that they also aren’t as annoying as the originals, and shall I say...

funny?

 For Fishlegs, I’m not entirely sure if I liked how the actor, Julian Dennision, played him, however one detail they added which I loved was them giving him the dragon cards which was introduced in the 2nd film. I liked that! It was honestly pretty cute and a good way to connect the 2nd and first film. This is honestly what I wanted the entire movie to be. To make changes that link either the movies or shows together through tiny details that can go overlooked, AND THAT IT MAKES SENSE AND DOESNT TAKE YOU OUT OF THE STORY!

But the one that did take the show out of these background characters was surprisingly Snotlout (I was actually really delighted for what they went with)

He is still the snotty guy he is, but what made him stand out in this film was that he interacts more with his dad and asking for more approval from him, as Spitelout just gruffs and ignores him. I liked it personally because they were not only adding new things, but also connecting some parts of the show, like Spitelouts and Snotlouts relationship in the Race to the Edge Series to this movie. And it somewhat reflects Hiccup’s relationship to his father in a way, WHICH I LOVE SO MUCH SINCE THEY POINTED THIS OUT IN THE SERIES!!! And through Hiccup, Snotlout gained approval of his dad with Hookfang, (which he wouldn't have really had gottenw ithout Hiccup) but also somewhat respects Hiccup a bit more.

Its SO good, I love it I love it I LOVE IT!!

(BTW THE ACTOR THAT PLAYED SPITELOUT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE SPITELOUT IN THE FILM ITS SO COOL)

Anyways same shenanigans go down. Hiccup hits the night furry and is rediculed by Stoick, his father. I’m so glad that they got the original voice actor of Stoick to actually voice him. I liked seeing him on screen and the way he talks is just as moving as the original films. Some added/changed things was when they were having the meeting part, he was talking about the legacy of the ribe, how they all came from different regions and came together to fight off the same enemy. I liked it, and his speech is very moving. Its just that I kinda wished they kept the “Those who stays, looks after hiccup” and everyone raises their hands to go with him back for searching the nest because it tells us a lot about how the village see’s hiccup. Although it is somewhat there? It isn’t as noticeable as it was in the original. They also mentioned Hiccups mom, both by mom and by name multiple times throughout the film, and I liked It so much. You have no Idea, and like I said, I like it when they change or add a few things that doesn’t take away from the film, and links the stories more together. I like it too because that moment when hiccup gently puts down his breast hat (which I do like how he does it gently instead of tossing it), holy shit I felt that anger from Stoick as Hicup trys to talk some sense into the tribe, but I’m getting ahead of myself. 

One thing they removed, before the meeting was that Hiccup was imitating Stoick on how he was a talking fishbone. I was kinda upset about it because BEING SARCASTIC IS HIS ENTIRE CHARACTER AND THIS IS A GOOD MOMENT TO SHOW IT- I was so sad man…I love that joke so much and they removed it- I mean gobber did say he was skinny in the dragon training section, but man….that joke is a iconic part of his character that it sucks that they removed it (and I'd argue it is a important part of his character because it shows his insecurity).

When we get to hiccup exploring the environment, Something that I nociced was that the CGI for the islands is somewhat inconsistent or doesn’t match up with the environment Hiccup is in? It is more noticeable when he is flying with toothless though, but I guess it is just a nitpick-

The enviroment is better in the original film in my opinion-

Not saying there isn't good enviromental shots in this film, just the island shots aren't as good as the original. That is all. (It seemed they also had scale issues too but I'd have to watch it again to see for mself)

We then meet Toothless. Now, he doesn’t look awful- however he doesn’t match in with the other dragons. As the others look more sharp, toothless looks out of place with the others. In my opinion, they should’ve had the other dragons also somewhat match Toothless so he doesn’t feel out of place or doesn’t look uncanny. I’m not entirely sure about the model for toothless for this version, but I will say that the original design/model for Toothless is peak and cannot be replaced-

They also tried to imitate that cuteness, but it just comes off as a bit weird. 

Now the part where Hiccup is talking about carving out his heart and giving it to his father when he found Toothless was entirely removed and replaced with weird hollow shots of him (there is a bit of weird shots that feel empty btw) looking at Toothless, contemplating on killing him, before ultimately not doing it. I wished they kept more of that dialogue in the film because it adds to his character. Hiccup is ridiculed by his father and tribe for being small and weak, (empathized by his sarcastic remarks about himself like that joke that was removed). He believes by doing this viking act will get him the respect that he wants, but then he ultimately doesn't because he saw himself in toothless. Someone just as scared as he was. Its a important moment and shows his pacifism and compassion. Yes, what he said his graphic, but its a key moment. Removing and replacing it with weird shots makes it feel like something is missing. I wouldn’t had minded if they cut it, but replaced it with different dialogue instead of ultimately removing that entire dialogue from that scene. Now I know that some parts of HIccup’s character was changed, to where he does want the approval of his father, but also is ridiculed by Astrid for being his son because of how small and weak he is (Astrid even told him directly that she wants to be chief 💀). Yes he is physically small and weak, but his wit and compassion is what makes him strong and a good part of his character. It is luckily still there, especially with Toothless where we see it the most as in the original film, I just wished they showed that insecure part of his character more from his sarcasm, because not only is it funny, they could've explored it more. I mean they did, but just without the sarcasm (or it was there but it was either very quiet or the music was so loud to where I COULDN'T HEAR THEM-) it just feels off/something is missing. If they were trying to tone down that sarcastic part, I guess it is fine? Though I'd have to rewatch it to see the parts I missed if they didn't remove it.

The dragon book scene is by far one of my fav scenes in the original film. Surprisingly in this film, although didn’t show us a lot of pages or dioluge, did something better: and it is before when Hiccup opens the book. 

Before that scene, We find out Fishlegs is making cards from how many times he had read it (AND IT MAKES SENSE, AND I LOVED IT!!) And what was amazing, THAT I ACTUALLY LIKED A LOT- Was that Hiccup and Astrid TALKED before she left. IN the original she said, “Read it.” and left

BUT IN THIS VERSION- Hiccup stops her before she leaves and actually tries to give her a different perspective on the dragons, even going as far as saying that “maybe we’re part of the problem.”  (I LOVE THAT LINE SO MUCH-) Astrid’s responds is reasonably like how she said “pick which side you’re on” is somewhat said here, however shows her confusion to Hiccups question. And from her gestures, it seem liked she is somewhat considering it, but because of how stubborn she is, she somewhat dismisses it. Yes this scene is good, yes, I liked the diologue shared between her and hiccup, however, I feel like they didn’t utualize this scene more when she find’s out hiccup is training a dragon. Regardless, this is the best scene of the film. It adds more depth, it adds something new to the table, and I like it. Although we don’t see the dragon book much, I’d say this is better than the original in a way, because it deepens the relationship between Astrid and Hiccup, and places some doubt on Astrid with her perspective of dragons before she meets Toothless that she didn't have in the original film because that scene wasn't there.

Same sequence of events happens as the original with minor changes, including Hiccup training Toothlesss, however something I want to critic about this version of Toothless is that he doesn’t feel as…alive as the original film. As the other dragons feel a lot more alive/animal like, I don’t feel a lot of personality when I see him, nor do I see a good friendship between him and Hiccup and feels rushed. But this is because they removed key elements or rushed them. That flying moment where they rest and brilliantly showed how the queen will be killed through Terrible Terror is cut. Its not there, and when that amazing scene of the queen comes, it makes it seem out of nowhere because this shot was cut. Toothless in the origninal acts like a animal through his movements and facial expressions. Although it is there in this movie, he feels very static-

And it's not a good thing because the movies are about Hiccup's relationship between him and Toothless, and they could've done it a bit better (not like it is bad, its just because they rushed or cut some scenes it just doesn't make it as deep as the original film)

Something I forgot to mention is that some added things was a fight with the dragons when they get to Hellhind’s Gate. IN this film, they show the fight that took place a bit, but I’d argue that they didn’t needed it, and I think it should’ve been the same as the original just so we get more scenes of the other characters and their relationships with each other more, and it unfortunatly does take away from the cilmax.

SORRY I KEEP FORGETTING BUT GOTHI IS HERE BY NAME AND I LOVE HER NEW DESIGN!!!

(only image I found of her unfortunatly- however its really good in my opinion and she stays mute!!! YIPEEEEE!!!)

Back on track, the training ensues, Hiccup wins, and we get to the part with Astrid finding out about Hiccup training a dragon. Its still the same where she wants to know what was going on, and still leaves to snitch on him.

Now on the flying sequence with Hiccup and Astrid, the best I can say was…that they did try. I understand the limitations with real people and CGI, especially recreating a scene like the original. Just the original is better than this one, but I am glad that they tried to make it good. It Just didn’t do it for me (but I want to just acknowledge that they did try at least, and that is better than not trying, even if it isn't that great).  

The scene that they changed, which I’m very mixed on, was Astrid’s comment on her admitting that she was wrong. IN the original, she says: “Okay, I Admit it. This is amazing. He is amazing”, and she continues her concern for HIccup after a moment since he is supposed to kill the dragon. However in this film she says: “OKay I admit it. This is amazing, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’d have to kill the dragon.” This feels super off because of that convo with Hiccup and Astrid that placed her doubt on her perspective on dragons should’ve shined here, but it didn’t.  She should’ve been somewhat more like the original here. Yes she is a bit of a different character here, but I think she should’ve been more in awe here and acknowledge that hiccup was right. Hell it could’ve been in a more reluctant tone here. Just something that isn’t this line. I guess she shows her concern before the dragon fight and after the dragon hive. But I'm not entirely sure. Im just mixed.

Also there was other scene during the fight that also made me itch in the wrong way was that instead of 

We got:

" Don't get involved. "

Not about Toothless, but its more directed towards her. And she ofc does get involved, but this minor change undermines HIccup's and Toothless' relationship. Yes he loves Astrid, but he cares about Toothlesses well being because if you think about it, Toothless is his first real friend that doesn't see him as weak and small, except as someone equal. Here, this change shows that he values his love for Astrid more than Toothless, who Astrid throughout this film, constantly didn't value him and saw him just as the village saw him: small and weak. At least thats what I got from it. Honestly it would've been better to have both of these in!

Like this:

" Astrid, if something goes wrong...just promise me one thing: Don't get involved. No matter what, just don't get involved, and don't get Toothless involved. We both know what they'll do to him. Do it for me...please..Astrid. "

Ik it can be written better, but this example I provided above expresses his concern for both Astrid and Toothless because he cares about both of them deeply. I just...wish it was that instead of what we got. And it effectively makes them have their cake and eat it too!

Now we get to that scene. That scene where he thows the breast hat.

Although the original is better, there is postitives here too. Hiccup in this film takes a more calmer approach, by gently placing it down instead of tossing it. I can see the tossing part (since it was made from part of his mother's breast plate) can be seen as disrespecting his mother in a way. Here, he respects his mom by gently putting it down, but it can still be disrespectful because he is still removing the hat and chose the dragon side. And thats disrespectful enough because this film acknowleges that Valka was eaten by a dragon and is brought up a lot! Both are good in my opinion, and Stoicks crash out is still just as reasonable as it was in the original.

Now when Toothless saves Hiccup and goes after his dad was Astrid telling Stoick that he wasn't going to hurt him. But because of Toothless being aggetated and threated by the others around him, Toothless does attack. It is a minor scene but at least it shows Astrid trying not to get Stoick Involved, even if she herself is.

(Which makes me wish they just had that toothless line in there too but whatever sigh)

Now another best scene in the original film is Hiccup's and Stoick's argument. I'm happy to say that it is just as good as the original. There are some lines that do feel awkward, but the fact that Stoick angirly says "THEY KILLED YOUR MOTHER" sent chills. And Hiccup doesn't even respond to that because right know they think that she is dead. ITS SUCH A GOOD AND VALID WAY TO BRING UP HOW BOTH SIDE SUFFERED BY USING SOMEONE PERSONAL TO BOTH HICCUP AND STOICK!!! Also that scene where he says, your not my son, made me fly into panic mode because after he said that, Stoick REGRETS WHAT HE SAID. And I was worried that they weren't gonna have that in, BUT THEY DID AND I WAS SO RELIEVED.

Imma stop here for now because the climax should be a seprate post of its own and because I reached the 30 image limit on Tumblr lol

Anyways, I hope you liked half of this synopsis and my opinions on this film. I'll give more opinions in my next post about the climax.

Until then, I bid you Aduie ✨

@oh-shtars @watchingthewalls (Idk who else to tag sigh)

[princesssarisa]

Both the early adaptations of Cinderella and the more recent adaptations have emphasized the value of kindness.

But there's a difference I've noticed between how that moral is framed in the earliest surviving adaptations from the 19th century (e.g. the operas of Isouard, Rossini, and Massenet) vs. late 20th and 21st century adaptations (e.g. the 1997 and 2013 versions of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, Disney's 2015 live-action remake, or the 2021 Kay Cannon musical).

Chiefly in how the contrast between Cinderella and her stepmother (or stepfather, as the case may be) is presented.

In the early adaptations, there's a stronger vein of social commentary. The point is that kindness and virtue matter more than title, status, wealth, clothing, or any of those superficial things that earn more respect in high society.

Cinderella's stepfamily are aristocrats, which is what makes them haughty and selfish. Though they have little money left, they have their status, family lineage, and social standing, which makes them think they're better than anyone lowlier or poorer than they are. At the same time, they fawn obsequiously over anyone wealthier or of higher status, especially the Prince. But poor, humble Cinderella, slaving away in her rags and ashes (although conveniently, she's also of high birth), proves to be better and worthier of the Prince's hand than they are, because of her kindness and purity of heart.

The more recent adaptations take a more psychological approach. Cinderella's kindness is framed less as "Even though she's a poor scullery maid in rags, her kindness makes her better than the most elegant aristocrat," and more as "Even though she faces abuse every day, she doesn't let it make her bitter, but chooses to be kind no matter what happens to her."

In these versions, the stepmother tends to be framed as more tragic. She was once an innocent young girl full of dreams like Cinderella. But the failure of her dreams, the loss of two husbands (either both died or one abandoned her and the other died), and her resulting fall into genteel poverty have left her hard and bitter. The chief reason why she hates Cinderella is because the girl reminds her too much of her younger self, and she wants to break her spirit the way her own spirit was broken. But she fails, because Cinderella resolutely maintains her kindness and optimism.

For another comparison point, just look at the scene added to so many versions, where Cinderella gives food and drink to an elderly beggar woman (or man) who turns out to be the Fairy Godmother (or her male counterpart Alidor[o]) in disguise. In the 19th century operas, and in 20th century versions like the 1914 Mary Pickford film or Prokofiev's ballet, this scene takes place well before the ball, and the stepsisters are present: they scorn the "beggar" and scold Cinderella for her charity, so the point is "These snobbish girls disdain the poor, but Cinderella is kind and giving, as she should be." Yet in the 2015 Disney film, the "beggar" arrives as Cinderella is crying after her stepfamily has torn up her dress and left for the ball, which changes the scene's meaning quite a bit. Instead of contrasting Cinderella's behavior with that of her cold-hearted "betters," the scene becomes more about Cinderella's personal psychology, showing that even in her deepest despair, she's able to see beyond her own troubles and pull herself together to help someone else.

It's an interesting change in emphasis.

@ariel-seagull-wings, @themousefromfantasyland, @adarkrainbow, @thealmightyemprex

[sharkiethrts]

yk i love yan sunday but yk what else i love?? dumb influenced sunday LMAO!! i loved ur sunday goes to the club fic

“it’s so…vulgar” “sing with me :((“ “🙂‍↕️ one song”

OMG AN APPRECIATIVE INBOX ASK?.? so happy!

YES! I LOVE AWKWARD SUNDAY WHO FITS IN SO WELL IN GILDED BALLS BUT LOOKS LIKE A RAT CAUGHT IN THE SUN WHEN HES IN NORMAL SOCIAL SITUATIONS!

When your best friend tries to make a mainstream joke when they first met him, he could only entertain them with an uncomfortably timed chuckle. When you got home, you saw him sitting on the couch with having a long winded chat with his sister on the phone, asking her just what the abomination does ‘its giving prince charming from the cinderella 2015 movie’.

Your best friend texted you later asking you whether your boyfriend ‘hates them now’

[artist-issues]

If you actually hate how Rachel Zegler disrespects the original Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, do not go see or stream the remake.

If you actually hate how Disney has turned the Lilo & Stitch live-action into a bad statement about race, do not go see or stream it.

If you actually believe that the original The Little Mermaid was perfect and needed no adjustments, and Eric was not a bland prince, do not go see or stream the remake.

If you actually thought that Emma Watson misread and mishandled the role of Belle, who, in the original, was expertly characterized, do not go see or stream the remake.

If you actually believe that the Genie wanted to be free, and Aladdin learned to trust, and Jasmine taught them both how, while the Live Action version ruined that, do not go see or stream the remake.

If you actually believe that the original Lion King movie was perfect and needed no bland NatGeoWild embellishment, do not go see or stream the remake.

If you actually believe that the Cinderella (2015) movie was a good remake, go out and buy the DVD—and then don’t go see and stream the other remakes.

Don’t do it. They don’t read our tumblr rants or watch our rage reels, but they count how many of us go see the new stuff. And they count our money as it goes into their bank account to fund the next one. And they count the time we spend on their streaming services. Teach them that we have standards, and the standards aren’t spectacle, and you can’t just buy us with soulless puppets of our favorite movies.

When you’re tempted to go hear the soundtrack play and listen to the dialogue you miss, just go watch the original. That’s what you really love.

#NotMyDisney alienated me with these last few movies, so I’m not playing the games anymore. Make movies for me, as if I’m the smart child you raised on good movies, or else I won’t go see them. If you guys want me, I’ll be waiting for the day that the Live Action Remake comes out, and then immediately streaming the original on Disney+.

Let ‘em measure how many seats are filled in their theaters, versus how many streams of the originals are playing on the same day.

[zomqied3ath]

My very long and honest review of the httyd live action because I feel like it both has its criticisms and likings (also just because I feel like people are hating on it wayyy to much without proper reason so)

🚨🚨This is going to be really long be warned 🚨🚨

• Okay for the main points being that it’s a live actions, yes live actions don’t have the greatest reputation considering the fact that most, MOST PEOPLE NOT ALL, are just bad ways of re-telling a story. While live actions have had a big raise since 2020 they aren’t new as they’ve been around for 2 decades but with these newer live actions they seem more like money grabs and quick easy ways to get a movie out rather than a good actual movie that re-tells a story even if it’s a carbon copy in a good way. A good example of a good live action is the 2015 Cinderella live action which we can all agree was amazing

Im side tracking anyways what im trying to say is that while yes live actions nowadays aren’t the greatest,(look at Snow White & Minecraft for example) there can be good ones when done with respect and love for the actual franchise and movie

• Next the actual idea of a live action httyd, fun fact for newer fans or fans who don’t know this but the idea of a httyd live action isn’t actually a new thing. The idea that sometime in the future that httyd will become a live action has been around for around a decade now. How do I know this, this all tumblr, imma explain this because even though im 18 I was very much active back in 2013-15 on tumblr even though I was a child,

blame the unrestricted internet access & my older cousin who introduced me to tumblr, anyways, the idea of a httyd live action had been mentioned around that time especially in 2014 when httyd 2 dropped and the big idea around the httyd fandom was seeing httyd in live action to see the dragons as real and cool looking, here’s an example of what I mean and I had to go digging through my original tumblr account to find this.

• Back to what I was saying. I even remember it being mentioned by Dean blois himself that it could be cool. while I couldn’t find the original post of that and lemme tell you I searched the idea of it was not really a newer thing. Hell I even remember when some people would create custom poster edits of what the httyd live action could look like, this is like 2014 so they were badly made so. Basically what I’m saying is the idea is not entirely new so while it very much surprised me that it even actually happened I’m also not 100% surprised either considering the new wave of live actions.

Anyway now my favorite part that im probably have people argue me with but idrc cause again this is my opinion but anyways the dragons design Horray. I’m just going to be honest im kinda 50/50 or maybe just a I like most designs but not all. For example hookfang’s design “chefs kiss” I think it’s one of the best ways they could have designed Hookfang in a realistic setting. Also I don’t think anyone has mentioned this but hookfang looks so much like the httyd live spectacular hookfang like, lemme show you what I mean.

The only main difference is the the live spectacular had hookfang have 6 limbs while live action being like the original has 4.

But if you look at the head area they look very identical with some minor differences as obviously ones a movie and ones an animatronic so. Live action Hookfang looks amazing idc what anyone says.

Anyways next Stormfly similar to hookfang is amazing is the realistic aspect and they gave her that kinda parrot like features that she has the only slight issue I have is why is her head kinda thin like I was looking at it was like hm stormfly looks kinda thin for stormfly whatever ig.

The zipplesbacks or barf and belch I’m okay with the design as I can kinda understand why designing them would be hard considering there stick thin necks and massive heads. Plus I had to do some research to check myself but zipplebacks are based on snakes, and the Zmey Gorynych which while looking that up makes sense as they went for the design they did for bark & belch so I can get pase that.

Now..the gronckle..imma be blunt the hell happened to the gronckle while I do find the design very cute very meatlug it’s just very much a surprise. While they keep the main elements like her tail and round big shape she just doesn’t fully scream gronckle to me. I don’t mind the change entirely I actually find it very cute and a way to change things up which I’ll voice out later.

Now toothless. What the fuck, okay so here is my main big issue with toothless’s design if we look back on the other dragons we see they give a very much realistic dragon design, very animal like not much cartoon like elements in it and then we compare toothless. Who yes has realistic elements has a lot more of that cartoon like look than needed especially in the eyes like to me they are wayyy so bright I can understand trying to get that green but it’s a little much, overall his body and all that is fine, except the fact I wish his scales were a bit darker but oh well, its mostly the fact that while with the other dragons they give off the realistic vibe and then toothless gives of the cartoon vibe more than it should. Do I think they should change it slightly yes. I would love it of toothless has a more cat like and agile like look to him than well that. While I’m not expecting it to be picture perfect I do think making toothless look more reptile and more realistic like to match the other dragons is needed.

And finally the red death, to me since her full body isn’t fully shown but the head was I’m kinda 50/50 on it cause I mean the way the horn which btw in the original is so small in some shots it doesn’t even look like she has a horn is changed into a massive horn that can’t be missed is something. Also I believe it’s the angle of which the red death looks is why she looks kinda funky but in others she looks identical to the og lemme show you.

As you can probably tell what I mean now by the horn and the angle it’s safe to say until the movie comes out and we get to see her full form I’m mostly 50/50 how her design. Another issue I slightly have is people are upset overall with the dragons because they aren’t basically the exact same with realistic dragon skin but the same cartoon eyes yes. I have seen multiple posts of people saying they wise they keep the og design like the og design is still there just yk more realistic? Idk anymore they were upset because hookfang’s eyes were right on top of his head like it is in the og which is odd but okay.

Up next we now have the actors/characters considering they are causing the most backlash and hate for the movie so yeah let me tell you what I think and yes it’s still going to be really really long.

* For starters hiccup’s actor, I honestly think the actor choice, Mason Thames, for hiccup was a good choice and decision. Not only does he look like hiccup, well more of like a blend of httyd 1&2, so basically rtte hiccup but younger. Is also helps because while some people prefer different actors for hiccup those actors are in their 30s so it’s odd for a 30 something year old guy to play a 15 year old get what I’m saying. And dw I’ll talk about this again when ruffnut comes up.

Anyways next fishlegs, genuinely I don’t fink the actor choice was terrible since was a good actor in Deadpool, plus his features the black hair remind me of book fishlegs so I don’t mind it much.

Snotlout’s actor choice I think was really good, while he doesn’t have the full stocky kind of look entirely he does scream snotlout to me and he doesn’t kinda look like him so yeah.

• Stoick’s actor choice was probably the absolute best choice cause not only is the actor stoick’s voice actor so he’ll sound like Stoick but he even looks like him so 10/10.

While we’ve only seen small clip of Gobber I think the actor choice is good considering the actor while looking him up looks like gobber even got the big ears i think his actor choice is pretty good also.

Now the twins, ruffnut & tuffnut, the actor for tuffnut is perfect absolutely perfect as in looks the only thing is iffy about is the his age cause my opinion actors who are in their 30s playing young teens or 15 year old Vikings in this example is odd to me. Not that it’s entirely bad just odd. Same with ruffnut’s actor. Now with her though I was confused when she got confirmed to be ruffnut’s actor because as well all know in the fandom the twins are know for being so identical they get mixed up even though they’re opposite genders. I was that glad just more confused until on social media The director dean belois said he had decided to switch it up with the twins basically meaning instead of them being identical and them refusing to believe it in the live action they’ll look nothing alike but completely believe that they are identical, get what I’m saying. While I don’t think the switch is bad it’s kinda funny but it did spark a bit of hate form people so let’s just see what happens when the movie officially comes out

• And finally the one who has apparently caused a lot of controversy Astrid’s actor Nico Parker. While I can understand some point of views from people wanting her to be blonde and such the way that some people are giving their reasons as it why Nico was a bad choice is just no. For one the whole it’s not historical accurate, um, so when the other Viking shows aren’t historically accurate it’s fine but when we get to Nico is not. And even then why are we even caring now if it’s not historically accurate it never was in the first place if it was they wouldn’t be wearing horned hats or being dirty as Vikings were actually clean and did in fact not wear horned hats. Another thing to point out is yes while Nico is black may I remind you she is 25-20% black not even half a quarter black, the rest she’s white. Plus if we look at photos from the Behind the scenes Nico is respectfully right now pretty pale, and the fact that people are using the one photo one wear she’s more tan and showing her black features to hate on her is just something. Could I understand wanting Astrid to have blonde hair yes but to hate on an actor who is actually a pretty good actor for it is wrong. Genuinely I think Nico will be a good actor for Astrid as not only beside the brown hair has similar facial features to Astrid, like just slap on a blonde wig and boom Astrid. Also I think people are forgetting that Astrid is Dean’s, the director, character so if he wants Nico to play his character then he can do that. All said and done I believe that Nico will be a good Astrid, she doesn’t deserve the hate she gets and we should be glad they didn’t pick someone who was in there mid 30s as apparently some people rather have an actor who is closer to 40s than 20 for playing 15 year old Astrid. So yeah REMEMBER THIS IS MY OPINION.

Jesus that took a bit out of me to type out but I still got more to say as I did say this would be long and detailed.

• Alrighty next setting, the setting for the live action is absolutely amazing, not only is it pretty accurate so far its so idk how to exactly explain it but it’s goods it’s good and I like it yeah that’s it.

Now for final details I either have not mentioned or are just stating because I think it needs to be said. For one I do believe that httyd live action will turn out good, why you may ask,well for one we have the original director or all 3 movies and short films being the director for it, and before you say well what about Chris Sanders, lilo & stitch is coming out soon literally a month before httyd which is another franchise that Chris was very involved in so it doesn’t come as a surprise that Chris isn’t involved in the live action, might he have been apart of it if the 2 movies weren’t literally right next to each other most likely as he was executive producer for the rest of the httyd franchise. But since he was also very involved in lilo & stitch as the original director it shouldn’t come as a complete shock that he is not part of the httyd live action as he’s working with the other movie.

Another thing to point out is peoples hate for Dean belois for being apart of the live action. Some may be confused but people are basically hating on him for being apart of it even though he’s the original simply because httyd 3 wasn’t that good. Which yes httyd wasn’t the best it could have been better in quite a few aspects but I would rather have dean bolois someone who loves httyd dearly and has been apart of it since the beginning than someone who doesn’t know much of the franchise and mess it all up.

More things to add as to why I think it will turn out good is the fact that original actors, book writers, and even John powell is apart of it. Which is why I’m not complaining as much as I’ve seen the grown ass adults doing, cause not only do you got stoick’s og voice actor acting as stoick, the original director, song writer and even the book writer Cressida Cowell is happy and apart of it like what more could you get.

Another small thing I noticed cause yeah, is that the date for the httyd live action is the anniversary date for httyd 2 making it 11 years old, Jesus, but yeah if you look it up you’ll see it and I think that’s a cool thing they did

Finally the last thing I’ll like to say about it could this movie be a money grab possibly as most things are these days, but at the end of the day we can’t complain too much with how much they are giving us. Plus I also heard they’re making the live action now to also promote universals isle of Berk which is most likely the bigger reason cause I mean the timing is there so yeah.

You can hate the live action I’m not saying you have to love it I’m just giving my opinions and reasons out there as I think some people are just jumping the gun. Do I think we should give it a chance yes, and as I said I’m not forcing or telling you you should like or love the httyd live action as it’s not everyone’s taste and that’s okay but having fits like those grown ass adults on TikTok & other socials is not. At the end of the day it’s a newer thing for the franchise and it’s not going to replace or remove the original movie as everyone knows originals are always best

I’m going to see because I’ve loved httyd since the first movie in 2010 even though I was 3-4 years old but still. I’m see it as a newer aspect for the franchise and believe it could be good, even a online friend who absolutely hated the live action is now saying they’ll go see cause it looks good so yeah.

Thats my full opinion & reasons have a good day