Aujourd'hui je regarde BLANCHE NEIGE pour me faire

Ça marche

J'aimerais trop avoir sa bouche autour de ma queue et baiser sa gorge à cette petite trainée latina.

Perso j'ai vu les 2 : " La petite sirène " et " blanche neige ", les 2 adaptations.
Autant j'ai trouvé la petite sirène moyen ( il y a quand même des trucs qui sont pas mal ), autant Blanche Neige est une bouse infernale.



A Disney Villains Retrospective, Part 33: Ursula (The Little Mermaid)

The little mermaid story would be revisited during the 1980's during the production of the Great Mouse detective. The differences with the original story is that the little mermaid gets a name, Ariel and the creepy sea witch becomes an outright villainous threatening to enslave Ariel for life if she can't win the prince's love in 3 days. TO make matters worse, Ursula, the witch disguises herself as the maiden with the beautiful voice the prince has been searching for. For this disney animation, things turn happier for Ariel. Roy Clements and John Musker are talented directors but even they would admit that the greatest assets of the little mermaid success would be Howard Ashman and Alan Menken who wrote the songs, who even would write the story undercore. Ashman worked with the directors fine tuning the story and writing a few of the most effective scnes himself and he was also involved in the casting of the sea witch now named Ursula. Charlotte Ray was a big contender. Other were contenders but the role went to Pat Carroll toi voice Ursula. Pat Carroll had a career in voicing before and after the little mermaid. Ursula went through different shapes, sizes and even species. The original idea was to put a person with an unfriendly fish looking first half. But what creatures would it be? Concept art choosed her as scorpion fish, manay, puffer fish and more. Animator, Matthew O'Callaghan drew her as being aprt of an octopus which the main animator Ruben A. Aquino eventually goes for. He made sure the animators didn't just focus on the human half oof Ursula but also on her body as well. Ursula had 6 tentacles which made it easier for the animators to handle. If you count her arms, that puts it to 8 limbs. Aside from the initial Joan Collins'ss influence, some concept art by Dan Haskett, most artwork influence came from Divine, a drag reformer famous for his roles in John Waters movies.
Kathy Zielinski thought of Ursula as someone like Norma Desmond, the ex starlet from sunset boulevard. Both characters are divas and have fallen from grace and want to be back on top. They don't care about little people but need them. Norma wants blind adoration, Ursula wants fears. Pat Carroll saw Ursula as a former Shakesperean actress now stuck selling used cars. Actor Max Kirby was filmed for live action references doing a choreograph dance to poor unfortunate souls Disney shared a decent amount of footage of actors doing the same thing for Ariel and Eric. The Kirby material is currently unreleased. Ashman suggested as the story developed, that Ursula be Triton'd sister plotting for vengeance, waiting to rise and to rule the seas. But the directors decided it was too much exposition at the beginning of the movie. Ursula's backstory and relationship with Triton are left vague. We don't know why she got banished or whether or not she is a relative or royal family member. Ursula is such a strong character that she doesn't even need something like that. The directors realized this and let the animators have their fun showing off in all her tentacled glory. Another discarded idea for Ursula's introduction would have shown her business practises as a speckled nerdy mermaid named Harold who would make a deal to become irresistible to women. In return, Ursula wants a special flower. However the flower isn't in season so he can't find it. As punishment he joins her garden of Ring Pops. Harold would have a minor importance in this version. He is prominently seen when Ursula plan to enslave Ariel. After being banished from the kingdom of Atlantica, Ursula has set up in a deep dark corner of the ocean. She offers to people their greatest desires but there is always a big price to pay.

Based to what she does to Aril, and before that to Harold, Ursula always tip the scales in her favor and actively sabotage her customers. When they can't pay up, she turns them into the Ring wormlike Pops that make up her personnal garden. But what she really wants is to get back in the palace not just as a member of the royal court but as the queen. That way she will get her revenge on Triton and control the 7 seas. For that she needs to take advantage of a lovesick mermaid with no one else to turn to. Ursula never tries to hide her creepy nature. She lives in a whale skeleton but the artist went a few more extra miles and designed a giant sea monster skeleton instead. Just seeing that, we know that the people who still stick around are either desperate or foolish. Maybe some actually managed to pull that off but the chances are pretty slim against Ursula. An earlier version of the scene had Ursula harshly insulting the little mermaid when she comes to her lair, about how she got banished, with Ariel responding that she tried to overthrow her father. The scene was rewritten when they realized that if Ursula started off with that attitude even someone as desperate and vulnerable as Ariel would be liable to leave. Instead, even if Ursula makes a past agressive jab, the scene shows a more inviting sea witch at the end of their first encounter. Something repulsive yet alluring about her. We find ourselves getting drawn in alongside Ariel. That's why she has a very long line of victims. The character is written to be incredibly seductive both in physical and emotionnal sense. She tends to flirt with customers. Even her song with Ariel is quite sensual, shaking and shimmying around showing off that body language. Aside the final battle, this sequence is Ursula's moment to shine, especially with song. Initially, Ashman and Menken wrote a song called silence is golden with Ashman quickly decided wasn't good enough.
And they wrote poor unfortunate souls almost immediatly afterward. Silence is gold song isn't bad but it doesn't stack up to the other songs. It reminds of the song wrote for the " Little shop of horrors ". The cut song focus almost entirely on Ariel being mute as part of their deal. The cabaret style " poor unfortunate souls " meanwhile is a musical masterpiece. This is the scene where she makes her sales. She sings about how she is misunderstood and want the unfortunate people. The performance is compelling. It still has a verse about how silent won't be so bad but it's nestled into a bigger picture. The song grows more manic as Ursula puts pressure on Ariel to sign the contract. The animation follows suit with Ursula's faces and poses getting more and more exegerrated. We end on the incantations to turn Ariel human which was lifted from the previous silences golden. The visuals at the end with the smoke end pulling Ariel's voice out of her throat manages to be disturbing on a visceral level even though nothing graphic actually happens. Then there is Ariel's frantic swim to land practically drowning seconds after becoming human. Ursula doesn't want Ariel dead since she wants her to fail by the third sunset but she can't use a dead mermaid as bargaining chip with Triton. I assumed this was meant to leave her in a disoriented state but she was really going to die. Ursula would probably have help her to get on the surface in time. Ariel ends up doing better than what Ursula intended. She even seems impressed in spite of her frustration. Considering the stakes and her past, she wasn't going to play fair. So she uses Ariel's voice and turns into a lovely maiden to hypnotize prince Eric. Since he keep talking about the women with this mysterious voice that he wants to marry, no one seems too concerned when the bewitched prince calls for marriage immediatly.
In this disguise, Ursula calls herself Vanessa, a ressemblance with Ariel with darker hair and meaner features. All of this leads to an epic final battle with a superpowered sea. Initially the showdown wasn't going to be as big of a setpiece. Ursula would have grown a little larger with the power of trident but Ariel would have knock it out of her hands at one point. Using her tentacles, Ursula tries to both strangle and drown Eric. But Sebastian recovers the trident and gives it to the prince who either zaps her or throws it her like a javelin on the draft. Another idea was to have Ursula attack her with the trident but Eric touches it with a harpoon, electrocuting Ursula. It was exciting but not enough for CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg not enough. He apparently told the directors he wanted a more die hard finale. At the end Ursula uses the trident to transform herself into a giant. The kraken like monster creates a terrifying storm then start shooting at Ariel. Meanwhile the storm is so powerful that it brings a sunken ship to surface. Eric steers it right into Ursula piercing her through the gut. The directors of this movie previously did " The great mouse detective ". They learnt a lot from working with Ratigan. Ursula is now viewed often as an all time great disney villain. Flotsam and Jetsam, the two Ursula's eels are a pair of old pros, taking turn of speaking practically finishing each other sentence. They are rough looking creatures sharing a raspy voice. Patty Edwards is voicing them. There is still something smooth and enticing about them. Through their eyes is shown in Ursula's crystal ball back at the lair. The best comparision to think off might be Diablo, Maleficient's raven from Sleeping Beauty. Everything Ursula tasks them, they accomplish. They persuade her to visit Ursula, prevent Ariel and Eric from kissing. They might be the only ones Ursula is affectionate with, like pampered pets. Even the contract is decorated with the the illustration of the eels.

Une honte du cinéma ce truc.



Déjà ça commençait mal avec Rachel Zegler qui parlait du prince du Blanche Neige original comme d'un putain " stalker "

Et que l'idée de base de Blanche Neige était erronée ou une connerie du genre.
Du coup ils ont changé tout le truc. Il fallait une mise à jour moderne où le personnage deviendrait " le leader qu'elle a toujours été censée être. "
Et Disney, qui se voulait inclusif, a refusé de prendre des vrais nains pour le tournage.
Du coup ils ont fait avec des images de synthèses. Et ce ne sont plus des nains mais des créatures mystiques. Enfin là c'est plutôt des aberrations.
Et j'oubliais : ils ont supprimé presque toutes les musiques classiques du catalogue pour les remplacer par des merdes fumantes.

Le jeu d'acteur de Gal Gadot et de Richard Zegler n'est même pas convaincant en plus. Chaque réplique sentait le malaise en plein nez.
En parlant de Blanche Neige, de base, sa peau était aussi blanche que neige. Mais maintenant, on la nomme Blanche-Neige parce qu'elle est apparemment née pendant une tempête hivernale.

Le seul message du film est que c'est une " girl boss " parfaite, qu'elle doit juste s'en rendre compte pour récupérer son trône.


Ah oui, et apparemment, la reine est censée être jalouse de Blanche Neige dans ce film.
La seule qualité de Rachel Zegler est qu'elle chante plutôt bien, et encore les chansons en elles mêmes ne sont pas ouf ( vu qu'ils ont supprimé les anciens trucs du catalogue ).

Le prince a été remplacé par un putain de bandit / vagabond.
Le mec qui s'échappe 2 fois quand il est capturé par la reine tellement la sécurité et le niveau de surveillance dans le château est à chier.

Et le reste du casting est tout aussi dégueulasse.

Les nains sont des abominations sur pattes qui ne servent quasiment à rien à part faire un ou deux subplots inutiles et une petite apparition à la fin.

Ils ont totalement refait Blanche Neige pour remplacer la fille incarnant la naiveté et l'innocence par une espèce de " girl boss " cliché qu'on voyait chez Disney depuis plusieurs années déjà.

Le pire c'est que le film ne s'embarrasse même pas de faire genre que Blanche Neige est plus belle que la reine ( en même temps, ce serait assez dur )
Du coup ils nous ont un truc sur " Oui mais Blanche Neige est plus gentille, c'est une meilleure personne, c'est la beauté intérieure qui compte "

Les mecs qui ont voulu faire un Flynn Rider de wish sauf que c'est de la merde fumante en fait.

On a aussi le cliché de la reine qui règne d'une main de fer sur un royaume appauvrie, après qu'elle se soit débarrassée du roi, qu'elle a marié après la mort de la mère de Blanche Neige. Du vu et revu quoi.

Enfin, c'est quand même drôle de se dire que le film qui se voulait inclusif et progressiste, a refusé d'utiliser de vrais nains.

.


Et à la fin, la reine qui est censée avoir tuée Blanche Neige avec la pomme empoisonnée, qui n'est même pas surprise quand Blanche Neige fait son retour.

La reine qui finit par demander aux gardes de la tuer. Blanche Neige qui arrive à persuader les gardes par " le pouvoir des mots ".

Tout ça parce que visiblement, elle se rappelle comment est ce que les gardes s'appellent.
Déjà l'idée de base est un peu merdique. Mais en plus, 0 poids émotionnel vu qu'on ne la voit jamais interagir avec les gardes quand elle était plus jeune en plus.
Ca rappelle quand elle offre une pomme au chasseur censé la tuer est c'est visiblement suffisant pour le convaincre de ne pas passer à l'acte.

La reine qui meurt car c'est une rageuse qui finit par casser le miroir et se fait absorber par celui ci.

Même le soit disant prince, ( bandit plutôt ) et Blanche Neige, ne sont pas convaincants en tant que couple.

A la fin, tout le monde prête allégeance à Blanche Neige, la nouvelle reine, et célèbrent ensuite avec leur dance malaisante.

Putain kheyou c'est long
Je lis ça après le film
T'en avais gros

paraît qu'il est vraiment pas mal, tu nous diras

Snow White: What Makes a Disney Movie?

Snow White is the first DIsney animated feature. In 1937 the movie was also the first theatrically released. It's easy today to look it as basic. But we should not forget the innovations that the movie bwas bringing both to Disney and the animation in general back then. Disney created a new genre as well as a blueprint for their iconic features to come. During production, executive called Snow White " Disney's Folly ". No one believed that anyone would pay to watch a feature lenght cartoon in theater. That seems ridiculous to us now in a world full of Disney's franchises and merchandise. But this would not exist withotu the leap of faith it took to createu Snow White and the new style of visual storytelling that came out of the movie. Cartoons at the time including Disney shorts were known for the " ruber hose " aesthetics meaning a very exaggerated type of motion. usually against a static background. We see this sensibility in the 7 dwarfs with their personalities communicated very visually. We see it at scenes where animals provide visual humor. But Walt Disney thought this style wouldn't keep an audience's attention for 90 minutes. So he set out to ceeate a new style of animation. To create the illusion of depth, Disney pionerred a new, multiplane camera technic. Rather than photographing one drawing, artists layered multiple sheets of drawings and moved the camera through them. Disney tested this technic in the Ocar winning " The Old Mill ". They used it to Snow White to make the art look more realistic and more broadly appearing. The characters in Snow White overall look more human than anything Disney produced until that point. Artists bought in live models to sketch, another totally new concept in the animation world. On the downside this increased realism came with less expressive facial features. Snow White herself has fairly indistinct blurry features. presumably because Disney tried to move away from the cartoony faces they were known for.
The effects of this style decision can be traced through almost every Disney movie to date. Disney had gotten criticism for having very diverse male faces but essentially one princess face. In Snow White it's also worth noticing that the prince has this inoffensive, pretty face. But the dwarfs don't. They are expressives, with varying faces. Over time the range of looks has increased for male characters but unfortunatly less for female characters with beauty being prioritized over expressiveness. We can see that both princessed that followed Snow White, Aurora and Cinderella, may have similar traits like being kind, gentle, motherly, singing and animals flock to her. However Cinderella and Aurora are more nuanced, interesting and likable because they have more personality and that's because they benefited from what Disney learnt from Snow White experiment. Cinderella is basically Snow White 2.0, new and improved. Same personnality but we get to spend more time with her so we come to a clearer understanding of her motivations. We know Snow White because we are being told about it but we don't really see much of it. None of her relationship with the dwarfs and the animals are made very spcific. Snow White's kindness in general is vague so it comes off as a little shallow and boring. Disney didn't make Cinderella until 1950 so that's 13 years after Snow White. And the third princess movie, the Sleeping Beauty, was 9 years after Cinderella, in 1959. Disney itself didn't really care about making princess movies. They were rather interested in pushing his creative limits. He considered his biggest achievement to be Pinocchio. That's why overall, Disney didn't make a lot of princess movies until 1989.

Why Return to Never Land is a Superior Sequel [Peter Pan 2]

A lot of things in this movie are better than in the first Peter Pan. It wasn't just a cheap cash grab rushed out to make some extra money. This sequel was was probably commissioned at the very least arguably to make more money had even more heart than the first production. The things likable in the original are just as good in this second one. The animation is still as good, Captain hook and Smee are just as iconic as ever. Some of their best lines are from this movie in fact. The voice cast is also impeccably chosen. Every replacement actors since the original had died and had to be replaced and their replacements were excellent.They fit the characters as perfectly as the originals. Cory Burton as Captain Hook might be slightly even more menacing than the original. Another aspect people immediatly looked was that the crocodile was nowhere to be seen and replaced by this big octopus instead. But I think that the octopus was just as good as the crocodile. He is even more expressive and funny. Everytime he looks at Captain Hook or his crew, he just sees them as giant codfish which is an amazing design choice from the artists. Unliky the crocodile, the enormous octopus is not ever Captain Hook before Peter Pan cut off Hook's hand and threw it to a crocodile. But because his own plans backfire on him. He tries to get the octopus to eat Peter Pan and instead accidentally giving the octopus a taste of himself. Peter Pan just like Tinkerbell are also less psychotic in this movie. They still keep the most important traits of their characters while being able to be more likable as protagonists you can root for. They dropped most of their sadistic traits. There are a couple of these sadistic traits that look nowhere near the first movie like when Tinkerbell knocks Jane off Peter Pan's back and she falls for a while before Peter Pan catches her and lthey laugh at this idea despite the potential risk.
It's still minor moments unlike when in the first movie, there is the mermaids scene trying to drown Wendy when Peter Pan just laughs hysterically doing absolutly nothing then just saying it was a joke. The lost boys are also better in the second than in the first movie. They actually have more distinct and defined personnalities. They were bordeline and interchangeable in the first movie. Neverland itself as a location is better in this movie. In the first movie, Neverland feels like kind of small and not really magical or interesting. In the second movie however, it feels way more grand and vast and also adventurous with an air of mystery to it. The sky above Neverland is not just pure blue sky like it sometimes was in the first movie. Here it feels like Jane entered in another world. Speaking about Jane, she is one of the reasons why this sequel worked so well. In the first movie, when it comes to Wendy, John and Michael, none of them really have progression or character development. They just get bioled down to 1 or 2 basic character traits like John being the proper British citizen. Due to the fact that Peter Pan and Tinkerbell were kinda psycho, it didn't give options for characters you would actually root for. It's a contrast with the second film because Jane is clearly better thanthe main characters from the previous movie. She has an arc, character development but also a more interesting personality. She is feisty, gets emotionnal easily, is severely homesick one point and always trying to be the smart, strong and dependable person for the rest of her family to lean on even if she fully doesn't understand what that actually means or how to pull that off, coming off as mean spirited and overly cynical and serious about everything. Peter Pan for example is flawed in the first movie but the first movie doesn't really adress these flaws.The movie lets him get away with all his problems. They are not considered as a problem in first place.
.

En tout, quasiment 0 développement du personnage, tout est plat, toutes les réécritures sont merdiques et il n'y a que les très rares fois où ils gardent un semblant de similitude avec l'histoire originale que c'est ok.


The Childish Cruelty of Peter Pan

In Disney, the adventure is pretty tidy with Peter leaving with Wendy and her brothers whiletheir parents attend a party. In the book it's not quite so tidy. It takes months just to get to that neverland. What they can eat is what they can steal from the mouths of birds and then when they fall asleep during their fly, Peter rescue them just in time to avoid tragedy. Eventually Wendy and her brothers realize they are at the child's mercy, totally. John grumbles about Peter, Wendy stops him. In the book, murder is a favourite past time for Peter Pan. He kills a lot of people in the book. It's disturbingly mundane. Almost every adventure involves killing people. A passage in the book refers to the lost boys toddles having bad luck with missing adventures. He always come back, right when the others are sweeping up the blood. Pirates are one thing. You could take it as a form of tribalism, or kids vs adults in neverland. Everyone fear Peter Pan. No one is allowed to dress like up or to know anything he doesn't. If they complain, Peter wraps them on the knuckles as punishment. If they grow up, and after all, they are not magical like Peter, Peter " thins them out". Despite all of this, Peter Pan is not that bad of a person. He is still a small child, forgetting the adventures the way a small child living ever at the moment forget what they did the week before. The violence of the adventures in neverland is a reflection of the violence of children's play in real life. Cops and robbers or cowboys and indians. Many of these games involve one side attacking the other. These are innocents games took on a darker cast. Popular conception of childhood, at least the adaptations of Peter Pan seem to depict it, is as something precious and pur tinged with the wistfulness of adults. We all have to grow up someday, they say. But don't you miss being a child?
The difference is that Peter Pan is magical. For him there is no difference between make believe and reality. It doesn't seem to grasp that the lost boys can't. His inahability to conceptualize their different perspectives is why he treats them so callously. It's not just Peter who acts like this. It's alll the childrens to some extent. Childrens are born with early seeds of empathy. They can mirror facial expressions, react to other humans discomfort by crying. They naturally feel for those around them. Empathy, the ability to not just recognize someone else's feelings but to understand them and apply them to yourself, that has to be taught. It's not quick to learn and people continue to refine their sense of empathy well past their adolescence and even during their adulthood. The lost boys never had responsible adults aroud them to teach them respect to others feelings. Without that guiding influence, they are unored.




SLEEPING BEAUTY: Disney's Most UNDERRATED Masterpiece

The movie was based on Tchaikovsky's ballet of the same name which was inspired by the Charles Perrault's story of the same name. At the time it was Disney's most expensive animated film. Its art style was created by Eyvind Earle who was chosen by Disney to create a look not only different from their previous films but also could emulate the style of Mary Blair.. She was the main concept behind films like Cinderella and Alice in wonderland. Her arts tends to focus more on the simplicity of specific shapes along with eye popping vibrant colors. This art style along with medieval tapestry inspired Earle to create a distinctly 2D look for the film. They also had to find a balance in regards to the character designs. They needed them to match the style of the backgrous while still being unmistakably Disney characters. Marc Davis, Disney animator and designer both foud the balance while also making the necessary compromises that both suited what Earle and Disney wanted. After all of that, the animators would use the multiplay camera technique which they eprfected to add a feeling of depth to these backgrounds thanks to the parallax effect : that's when objects move in the foregroudn faster than thsoe in the backgroudn, making the world and the characters feel more three dimensional and believable. But the film just knows the importance of letting a shot stay still, allowing to be sucked into its atmosphere. This was the first animation film who used the Super Technirama 70 process and the second one to be shot in anamorphic widescreen, the first being " The Lady and the Tramp " being released 4 years earlier. Both of these techniques compressed the footage to fit onto the film's roll and then stretched out to its normal width during the projection. So previously, no Disney film were this grand in scale in term of how it filled the screen. When comparing with films like Snow White or Cinderella, we see the striking difference.

The animation had the biggest impact on the film's budget of 6 million of dollars and is a shining example of Disney pushing limits of what they could accomplish. The music was composed by George Bruns who was inspired by the Tchaikovsky ballet. Bruns cleverly straight up took parts of the ballet soudntrack and recontextualized it to fit each scene perfectly which then allowed the animators to use it as a guide when pacing and animating the characters. They composed the music first then animated the scenes afterwards. Bruns was able to take Tchaikovsky's ballet and then change its significance and placement within the story and yet still manages to make it memorable whether it's enchanting, romantic or even terrifying. Easily one of my favourite film soundtracks of all time. Each of the 3 fairies are unique in their own way,brave and decisive, kind and throughtfoul and hard hearted and fiery. They complement each other perfectly, leading to great chemistry as well as funny moments. The one thing uniting them is obviously is their love and loyalty to princess Aurora is technically their adopted daughter of 16 years. As for Maleficent, she is easily one of the best Disney villain. The oriny is that her motivation seems pretty weak. But firstly a simple motive isn't inherently a bad thing. And in a fairy tale, making a character super layered and complex isn't a priority. Maleficent works because of the execution. Eleanor Audley was Maleficent's voice. Marc Davis also did a great design. She was also the main reference as she would perform her scenes on a sound stage in costume. Other thing to consider is that during the time period of the film, it was considered as a big insult to not be invited to a christening as it was usually a big public event. Naturally her method to get back at everyone is what makes her evil.

.

C'est long mais ça en valait la peine.
Disney qui commence avec Blanche Neige en 1937 et qui est peut être en train de signer son arrêt de mort avec cette merde fumante que constitue cette adaptation quasiment 90 ans plus tard.


why Cinderella (2015) is a visual masterpiece

It's live actions, visual style and historical realism mixed with whimsical fantasy at the same time. . The time period is grounded in the 19th century. But it's not wholly historically because it's a fairy tale after all. It capitalizes on the live action medium. First element is romantic cinematography. When comparing to other live actions, they have this artificial plastic look to them. Cinderella is the only remake that was shot on film. Every single one after was shot on digital cameras. There is nothing wrong with digital cameras but they have their distinct differences in the way that the image looks film as a distinct grainy texture, the colors are warmer and the movement softer. The film looks timeless and romantic and rich. It's perfect for a fantasy movie that references different historical periods. Digital on the other hand is clean and very sharp. It looks beautiful for futuristic or sci fi movies but not fantasy. Because fantasies, especially the ones that reference the past like Cinderella shouldn't look like hyper modern films but rather makes it feel like it's an old story book fairy tale.

Too much aesthetic is maybe why some tend to see actors rather than characters. Cinderella has also some of the most gorgeous camera angles like the overhead shot as she enters the palace. You get a sense of scale and wonder as she enters this whole new world that's so different from where she came from. From this simple close up of the prince's hand on her waist just before she gasps or the titled one as she is running away that conveys how frantic she is. I also likes the shot that introduces the vil stepmother, starting on the groud then slowly panning up to reveal the upwards angle. It's actually intidimating. Not to mention her outfit. Even the simplest shots are beautiful like the judgemental stepsisters framed in the distant dorway. Lady Tremaine hidden by her luxurious oversized hat. Cinderella against the chandeliers. I cannot think of such creativity for other DIsney live actions. Cinderella also doesn't rely on CGI for magic but is still magical. It achieves this in : 1 : focusing less on personified animals and instead, time is spent on Cinderella's childhood adding complexity to Lady Tremaine and giving the prince a personality. These are all usefull changes that make a more compelling story and in a lot of ways better than the original live action gives depth to the characters just like it gives depth to 2D animation. The animals don't speak but the mices still have personalities and a charm. The cat is a real cat with only slight CGI to enhance his facial expressions. The butterflies are also simple, sweet and discreet. There weren't in the original but i liked the added detail because it symbolizes the transformation, freedom and growth.

The second way that Cinderella uses less CGI but is still magical is that Cinderella uses practical effects and only uses CGI when necessary.. 5 000 candles were actually lit in this ballroom. The fairy's godmother dress has actually hundreds of twinkling LED lights built into it and the goose and the lizard men are wearing prosthetics. I like practical effects. They feel very human, artistic and less uncanny. I would have preferred that the Beast, in Beauty and Beast live action, would have been a mix of practical and CGI rather than fully CGI. There are tiny hints of magic throughout the movie like this butterfly that becomes parts of the light or the mice in the background. In general there is very little CGI until Cinderella's transformation which makes this sequence much more breathtaking and what's even more important is that this scene is a very iconic scene in the original adaptation and they don't directly copy it, they reinvent it and make it their own. It's very different than the sudden appearance of the original dress. The entire sequence takes 40 seconds rather than 5 seconds and even through it's CGI, it's one of my favourite parts in the movie. Lastly on the topic of CGI, Cinderella is not a musical so they weren't pressured to rival visually complicated scenes. I don't think removing songs is always the right decision. Mulan's live action for example should probably have been a musical. But it's hard to top how dynamic and creative the musical numbers are in the animation. They tried it in the Aladdin's live action.

The movie has the perfect balance of saturated colors that still feel believable in a live action and a big reason of this if that it's vibrant like a kids movie should be but not to the point of cartoonishness. The only time the bright colors overpower the screen is when they are supposed to like over the top. Cinderella's stepsisters also have great contrast. On one hand the cheery, optimistic colors making up most of the movie, the joyful beginning for example has sunshine yellow as Ella plays with her mom. When Ella meets the prince it's in a lush green forest Ella stands out and her signature bright blue which is serene and approachable but the movie doesn't shy away from darkness. When her mother passes, the colors become desaturated, signifying grieg. When she learns of her father's death it's dark and stormy to reflect an intense moment of sorrow which makes her empathy for his work partner much more admirable. When she cries alone in the shadow doorway, this is heartbreaking. Then there is Lady Tremaine's blackmail scene, dominated by the dark colors and ominous candlelights that make it look sinister and cinematic. Other live action have dark scenes too but they are hard to see and tend to have this bizarre blue cast over them. And visually it still looks beautiful. You can shoot scenes without all of this blue. The overuse of blue is unromantic in the Aladdin live action movie. We barely see Aladdin and Jasmine. Compare that to Cinderella strolling through the gardens with the print. Cinderella is literally growing in the darkness.

About the sets. First we have the farmhouse. THis is charming and feels like straight out of a fairy tale. It's xovered with windy vines and windflowers on the outside, and on the inside all the walls are decorated with flowers or tree painting. In the beginning you can see the outside flowers being vibrant pink and this is the time when the house full of love. But then the Tremaine family arrives. The flowers are drabber, and the vines are browning. Cinderella's room is rustica nd vintage before the stepsisters overtake. Then the horney and comfortable fabrics turn to sleek and expensive satins btu you can see it still has her signature blue walls The attic is a drabn colorless and open space with barely any furniture. Cindeerella visually stands out as she instantly brightens the space. This room would be typically so depressive but Cinderella is optimistic and is grateful because it's peaceful which emphasizes her good natured spirits. The original silver carriage is cool but this one is on a whole other level of magic. The carriage was designed to look like a jewel. It's fully functioning and can be pulled by 4 horses, you still have the pumpkin shape in line. But it also encompasses glass elements of the greenhouse And out of all the remakes, the castle is the best castle. The production designer Dante Ferretti referenced the Baroque period and iconic french architecture from the Louvre and the Palace of Versailles. It's grand, ornate and majestic. It's not just the ballroom but everything, whatever it's the hallway, the king's chamber, the secret garden, even the painters room which is charming.

Tu verras par toi même que la plupart des critiques sont largement justifiées.


A mon avis, la seule adaptation Disney qui ait vraiment marché, voire surpassé l'original, c'est Cendrillon 2015 ( perso je mettrai Cendrillon 2015 au dessus de Cendrillon 1950 ).

Le reste c'est soit moyen ( la film " la petite sirène " était je dirai moyen et ok mais sans plus );
soit désastreux ( Banche Neige 2025 en est l'exemple le plus parfait ).

Perso je classe le film dans moyen... Je suis presque à la fin ...
Ça se regarde.
Y'a des choses qui auraient pu être bien bien améliorée.
Pourtant c'est dommage les 1/5eme du film le début sont vraiment super.
Ensuite ça se dégrade pas mal

Perso maléfique> la belle au bois dormant
La petite sirène new > la petite sirène old

Tu peux la sodomiser pendant que je la deepthroat.



C'est une petite pute qui devrait être souillée salement.

Tout ce qu'elle mérite c'est que la planète forom lui éjacule dans la bouche.

Zegler la cumslut.

Maléfique meilleur que la belle au bois dormant ( 1959 ) ?

T'abuses un peu là non?
Perso, je trouve que " Maléfique "est pas mal mais sans plus.

Après c'est bien plus compréhensible que les quelques personnes ( ils existent bien que rares ) qui ont trouvé le nouveau Blanche Neige de 2025 meilleur que l'original de 1937 voire l'adaptation de 2012 je crois.


Sleeping Beauty - The Pinnacle of Classic Disney

Sleeping Beauty is an adaptation of Charles Perrault fantasy tale of the same name. It tells the story of Princess Aurora, born to King Stefan and Queen Lea and the recipient of a curse from the wicked Maleficient who destin the baby to prick her finger on the needle of a spinning wheel on her 16th birthday. then die. The curse leads the kingdom to hide the child having her life with 3 fairy godmothers unaware of both her true identity and her betrothal to Prince Philip whose marriage will unite the kingdoms. But of course destiny bring the 2 star crossed lovers together and pushes Aurora toward her fate which both Philip and the fairies fight to prevent. A lot of elements of the classic fairy tale are here. It's the quality of animation and the astounding visual aesthetics which make Sleeping Beauty such unforgettable piece of Disney. From the path of early inception of the story in 1951 to Sleeping Beauty's eventual release on January 29 th 1959 is a long and arduous one filled with script rewrites, directors change and multiple shifts in artistic directions spearheaded by Walt Disney in the last animated film that would be largely influenced by the studio founder, the fairy tale was supervised by 3 supervising directors, Wilfried Jackson who left the project due to a heart attack, Erick Larsen who started as a sequence director in charge of Aurora's forrest dance with Prince Philip. And finally Clyde Geronimo who saw the film to completion after Larson's dismissal. It's in addition to sequence directors Wolfgang Way Thurman who oversaw the dragon battle final. And Les Clark in charge of the opening sequence of baby princess Aurora's presentation. Beyond these 2 animation heads, Sleeping Beauty also had 7 contributing writers and 5 directing animators.

The process was shepherded and often complicated by Walt Disney's involvement, leading to many chances in leadership and shifting story elements. However these many chances were in a pursuit of a singular vision, the culmination of the many animated features created in the years prior. In addition the film is presented with anamorphic widescreen, the second ever for Disney following 1955's Lady and the Tramp, with Sleeping Beauty presented in a supertech neurona 70 millimeter prints which took animation filmed in 35 millimeter technirama and optically unscrews and enlarged the film to 70 millimeter for an aspect ratio of 2.5 5 to 1. Consider the stark contrast of Sleeping Beauty and and Lady and the Tramp compared to every Disney film which came before and in the 2 decades of film that came after which were all presented in the 1.35 to 1 Academy ratio. And you can see these 2 stories feel like exceptionnal achievement in the history of animation. Due to the massive budget of Sleeping Beauty It wouldn't be until 1985 and " the Black Cauldron " that Disney would return to super technorama, settling on standard widescreen presentation from then. The resuult of Sleeping Beauty's representation is an expansively widescreen framing that encapsulates both characters and audience in a fantasy world that would allow foregrounds background and action to be showcased at every second. We can see the specific advantages of the ratio in Aurora and Philip forest dance. where the Disney team as the couple gracefully valse along in a still frame. It allows the audience to capture their intricate movements, their stunning reflections in the water and the delicate framing created by the forest around them without cutting to these individual elements.

Likewise, the massive walls within the castle and the enormous forest of thorns that plays as the setting for the film's climatic showdown are allowed to be expansive, feeling like breathing and living worlds instead of incidental background. The result is a fantasy setting that is just as important and iconic as the characters that live in it. It's complemented by George Bruns adaptation of Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty ballet, a gorgeous and safety score punctuated by the enchanting once upon a dream. These results show Sleepy Beauty not to be the result of an inspiration and experimentation but rather as the culmination of many years of growth and experience within the studio. While Walt Disney was both busy in the development of television and Disneyland at the time of the creation of the film, it's clear from the experiences relayed by the many involved with the film's development that the studio head was heavily invested in Sleeping Beauty's formation. The entire film feel crafted to showcase and meditate on this glorious art, largely avoiding the comedic subplots of most Disney films both before and after in an effort to stay focused on the main narrative. This is why Sleeping Beauty is one of the most serious yet slowest Disney films of the studio's early decades. While numerous artists are involved, the source of the iconic look and feel of Sleeping Beuaty can be found in Eyvind Earle. The art style of Sleeping Beauty finds its roots in the unicorn tapestries, a serie of 7 pieces of medieval arts, housed at the Met cloister which were brought to the attention of Walt Disney by story artist John Hench and given initial life in the sketches of Kay Nielson. Earle built off these ideas in the following years and infused the art with a Renaissance style, taking an extremely detailed approach to the world which can be seen in the bark of the forest. Trees divots of castle wall stones and hanging drapes that add a softness to this fantasy world.

Walt was committed to Earle's modernist interpretation of medieval settings, instruction all the artists involved into the creation of the film to match his approach in their character design and color choices. Particulary, Marc Davis found inspiration in Earle's style when he created the models for Aurora and Maleficient. However the difficulties coming from Earle's designs not only led to a slow creative process but caused numerous fights behind the scenes. When Earle left the studio in 1958, the supervising director softened his background art to fit a more classic Disney style. The opening book pages of the film showcases a simplistic flattened style that is more highly evocative of early Renaissance. The film animation quickly establishes a large depth of field both foreground and background shift within the frame contrasting movements of characters with a vaste surrounding geography. The world is gorgeously lit with shifting lightning sources including the demonic glow of Maleficient herself. That meticulous and seemless blend of static background with moving animation cells avoid the obvious mismatch of cell and frame that often come with lwoer budget animations. Earle's blend of modernist style and medieval setting built the look of Sleeping Beauty literally from the ground up. with Disney insisting that his characters animators compose their subjects in a manner that suited the world they inhabited. It's a more formal and mannered approach to character animation than what we can see in malleable and highly expressive design seen in the film's before and after. Even after the characters are heightened as the fairy godmothers are typically set within the boundaries of real human movement. Disney also insisted on filming live action sequences for his animators. Helen Stanley previously acted as a character model for Cinderella before modeling for Aurora. But the match of animation to real life was far more extensive for Sleeping Beauty.

.

En fait j'adorais la belle au bois dormant quand j'étais petit, mais en grandissant ça m'a gonflé figurez-vous
Alors que maléfique adulte passait crème pour moi, j'étais ravi

Moi aussi, quelle sensibilité

J'ai honte mais c'est le seul Disney Live action que j'ai aimé dans toutes les merdes qu'ils ont pondu. Emma Watson en Belle ça passait bien je trouve

J'ai arrêté de regarder des Disney quand j'avais 10 ans mais ça a l'air bien malaisant ce film

Bon, je dirais un film moyen+.
C'est OK, ça peut faire une petite séance sympa mais c'est pas dingue.
Par exemple certains films sortis y'a 20 ans genre " le 13eme royaume " mettent une vitesse à ce film

Mais bien sûr qu'on lui renifle le fion, c'est pas la question. C'est qu'elle abuse, agit comme une gamine en faisant des gros fuck sur instagram en disant à ces détracteurs d'aller se faire enculer