Author Topic: Cinderella (1950)  (Read 14188 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26501
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2009, 10:14:43 AM »
I'll return here momentarily with screen shots that accurately prove why you are completely off the mark and how you are simply overlooking the obvious situation just because you do not agree with it, okay? Okay.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26501
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #21 on: August 06, 2009, 10:24:10 AM »
1. Early in the film Lucifer makes Cinderella put the dog outside.



2. Note that double door in the kitchen, here's a shot of Lucifer look out of it.



3. The bells start ringing for Cinderella to get the women their tea.



4. She comes inside through the door she exited, which is that double decker door.



5. In one single take Cinderella pours the tea, puts it on a plate, and walks it to her sisters, continuously....







6. Now where does the dog enter the house at the end?



Oh that's right, through that double door. Seeing as how Cinderella was clearly on the most direct path up the stairs, which clearly goes through the meeting room and up that staircase that she descends at the very end, it is logically sound to reason she took the most direct path to reach the women, which also happens to bypass that door that leads to her tower. Now unless the film does not show us another staircase, and even then we would have to believe that the dog is in no major hurry to get to Cinderella, which is clearly not the case, he would have to run straight through the meeting room to get up the stairs. I do not care how absorbed they all are in the slipper thing, there is no way that not one of them is unable to see a large dog running through a room, up a staircase, and then breaking down a door that leads up to Cinderella's tower. Jesus, just because you do not have a problem with the scene does not mean that the scene is not inherently flawed.


Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17562
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2009, 10:29:47 AM »
Once again, you are trying to make things illogical by ignoring the easy and logical. The shots you show don't have any bearing on the path the dog takes to get into the house. First, the group of slipper people are in another room, they aren't out in the open, they are only out in the open later when the duke and his man are leaving and they are trying to stop his departure. Second, the film doesn't show the dog's path through the house. Therefore it's only logical that they were in another room where they didn't see him or there is a different way to get to the stairs. Those are the logical steps, you continue to try and work around logic.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26501
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #23 on: August 06, 2009, 10:46:38 AM »
Oh they are in a different room, but it has to be the same way Cinderella got to those stairs. Let's look at this some more since you find it impossible to admit that you're wrong.

1. Here is the entrance



2. Notice the pattern on this floor, the same as the one where Cinderella walks up, so it must be the same staircase.



3. Yes, they are in a different room, but they are directly to the right of the staircase, making them stand right were this shot is shown from.



See, they even have the right wall to fill out the frame.



Not to mention that when the mice get the key they fall down the step mother's dress and slide directly to the left, right by the stairs, in less than a few seconds. It is clearly the same route that Cinderella used earlier in the film.

Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17562
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #24 on: August 06, 2009, 10:57:07 AM »
There's nothing to admit. It's a simple case of logic being presented, with a myriad of ways in which it can be explained, and you once again trying to find the illogical where there is none. Even if the dog goes up those stairs, do you really think the people in that room are going to stop trying to become Queen of all the land to admonish a dog they don't care about?

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26501
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2009, 11:27:39 AM »
The step mother, the one who locked Cinderella in her room, is not going to care that a dog has just run through the room and up the steps? A woman who is so Hell bent on keeping Cinderella in her position isn't going to at least check out what is going on? Especially since the dog forcing open the door upstairs will not be silent. She would be all over that dog.

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2009, 11:28:08 AM »
This is all very stupid. FLY is finding yet another reason to crap on a movie. I don't even like Cinderella all that much, but there are tons of movies that don't follow their own rules when it comes to use of physical space. It's on of the great things about film that such things as the rules of physical space do not have to be followed so long as things are edited properly and the story is good enough not to care anyway.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26501
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2009, 11:32:07 AM »
This is all very stupid. FLY is finding yet another reason to crap on a movie.

 ::)

Cinderella

Still, I enjoyed my time with Cinderella despite the film lacking any sort of logic for me to follow. The animation of the people is pretty impressive, and the animals all look great, plus the film is both enjoyable and complex enough to work for audiences of all ages. The real strength, as I touched on earlier, is the use of character establishment and following up with what the film presents. None of the characters are underdeveloped 'archetypes,' which I still think is a poor excuse for lazy writing, yet none go through any sort of dynamic noticeable change. It's all pretty impressive.

B+ or 3.79842395703415678234658139

Currently in the marathon the rankings go as...

1. Bambi - (16.3/17)
2. Song of the South (16.3/17)
3. Dumbo - (14.9/17)
4. Pinocchio - (13.3/17)
5. Cinderella - (11.6/17)
6. Melody Time - (10.5/17)
7. Make Mine Music - (8.2/17)
8. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad - (7.9/17)
9. Saludos Amigos - (7.7/17)
10. The Three Caballeros - (6.66/17)
11. Fun and Fancy Free - (5.5/17)
12. Snow White - (2.5/17)
13. Fantasia - (0/17)

The thing is it is not edited properly. the dog hops in the door and then is magically in the stairs, despite needing to go through the room with the people to get there. He just gets in, the same with Lucifer, they just happen in there magically.

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2009, 11:37:16 AM »
I know you liked it, but you still crap on it. And in my opinion crap on it unfairly, at least when it comes to this particular gripe. I actually agree that the problem with the film is that the writing leaves a lot to be desired. When all is said and done I just don't care if Cinderella gets that damn slipper on or not. But the scene you are bashing is, like is said, another example of a film meddling with the properties of physical space through the magic of editing. It isn't poor editing, it's actually great editing, because it is done so as you don't notice. The trouble, of course is that once you notice it it can because very distracting. For example, when I learned how much of the car chase in Bullit was shot with the same cars over and over again it somewhat ruined the chase for me if only because I can't stop noticing it now. Is that bad filmmaking? No. It is very good filmmaking considering most will never notice it.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26501
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Cinderella (1950)
« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2009, 11:40:13 AM »
But it's so overt, how can you not notice? The film showcases two flights of stairs in that house the entire time: the ones to Cinderella's room and the main flight of stairs. That's it. It's not a minor connection to make, it's incredibly noticeable and distracts from what is otherwise a very good film.