Poor Cinderella

[Cartman]

What bugs me about this cartoon is that Betty's hair is red instead of black as it normally is. Was there any reason why the animators did this?

[cbrubaker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "Poor Cinderella" the only Fleisher Betty cartoon that was made in color? Maybe Betty's supposed to be red. It's black in other cartoons because hey, it's black and white.

In Bill Melendez "Betty Boop" special from 1980s, her hair was "changed" to black though.

[J Lee]

What bugs me about this cartoon is that Betty's hair is red instead of black as it normally is. Was there any reason why the animators did this?

It was the first Fleischer color cartoon -- I'm sure they were thinking that to give Betty her traditional black hair in the Cinecolor process would be a waste of the extra processing costs, so they gave her hair a color you couldn't reproduce in black and white.

[Geezil]

What bugs me about this cartoon is that Betty's hair is red instead of black as it normally is. Was there any reason why the animators did this?

Maybe to make Betty look hotter (as if!)? :D

[detroittvguy]

http://www.detroitkidshow.com/poor.jpg

Betty has black hair on the cover of the sheet music.

[Sniffles12]

Hey, Betty is a hot foxy lady, so she can change occasionally the color of her hair like most of the women do, don't you think? :p :D

[JDWeil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "Poor Cinderella" the only Fleisher Betty cartoon that was made in color? Maybe Betty's supposed to be red. It's black in other cartoons because hey, it's black and white.

In Bill Melendez "Betty Boop" special from 1980s, her hair was "changed" to black though.


Betty's hair wasn't red in that film, she was a strawberry blonde at least according to the print that I saw.

[musicradio77]

I have the cartoon "Poor Cinderella" on one of the cartoon DVD's. It has Betty Boop's only cartoon as part of Flesicher's "Color Classics" series as released by Paramount. It has a Paramount title card minus the ending card where they had a special ending card with a curtain came down with a Paramount logo on the right side of the screen. I'm not even sure where the UM&M TV print of the same cartoon is. It's probably in a number of PD tapes elsewhere or on LikeTelevision website.

[Cartman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "Poor Cinderella" the only Fleisher Betty cartoon that was made in color? Maybe Betty's supposed to be red. It's black in other cartoons because hey, it's black and white.

In Bill Melendez "Betty Boop" special from 1980s, her hair was "changed" to black though.

I have seen merchandise with Betty in color and her hair was black. I personally feel that it looks much better this way.:betty:

[Ray Pointer]

The descision to make Betty's hair red was an art direction concept, not one by the animators. Considering the fact that she has such a large head, it made sense to add color to her hair for a number of reasons. First, black would have created the impression of a hole on the screen, and would have been too much of a contrast to the rest of the colors, which were more subtle. Second, red photographs as black in black and white. So with the addition of color in POOR CINDERELLA, here was an opportunity to try something new. This also could have been influenced by Clara Bow's 1928 film, RED HAIR. If you consider that Betty resembles Clara Bow (whom Helen Kane seems to have copied in appearance), this also seems likely.

The degree of intensity of the redness of Betty's hair in CINDERELLA seems to vary from prints and video transfers. Most of the versions being discussed are taken from video transfers that have been exaggerated, turning the hair color to a pumpkin orange, when in fact is was more auburn.

For decades, television prints were available in black and white only on this cartoon, with the prints made from the blue negative. This gave Betty the appearance of being a platinum blonde in black and white because of the absence of the red negative images. Then, in the spring of 1980, UCLA was receiving a number of negatives from Paramount and NTA. In the process of inventorying, the red negative was found, and a new Eastman reconstructed print was made. I saw this, and the colors were more intense, with Betty's hair being henna, or a reddish-brown and the fairy godmother was in a purple gown, not middle blue as we see in the versions today.:betty:

[Argus]

For decades, television prints were available in black and white only on this cartoon, with the prints made from the blue negative only. This gave Betty the appearance of being a platinum blonde in black and white because of the absence of the red negative images. Then, in the spring of 1980, UCLA was receiving a number of negatives from Paramount and NTA. In the process of inventorying, the red negative was found, and a new Eastman reconstructed print was made. I saw this, and the colors were more intense, with Betty's hair being henna, or a reddish-brown and the fairy godmother was in a purple gown, not middle blue as we see in the versions today.:betty:

This explains why the television prints include the "An National Telefilm Associates Release" logos at the beginning instead of the color logos. Also explains the U.M.&M. copyright replacing the Paramount copyright on the title (instead of being on the end NTA logo).

[Ray Pointer]

As I understand the confused history, U.M.& M. TV Corp. bought the film library in 1955, then sold it to National Telefilm Associates the following year. Apparently, during the course of transfer of ownership, there were prints of some cartoons with both UM and NTA trademarks, although the copyrights were in the name of U.M. & M. In a few cases, the date was in error. Starting in 1957, through 1964, the copyrights were renewed in the name of U.M. & M. Although Paramount stipulated that its name be eliminated from the cartoons, Paramount seemed to have retained certain rights. The domestic rights were supposedly "leased" in this sale, which included theatrical distribution rights as well.

The UM prints generally were better than NTA prints, particularly color prints. And while UM remade the color titles in a font similar to Times New Roman in yellow on a red background, this was better than the NTA approach, which silmply blotted and blanked out the Paramount name over the original title frames.

[Argus]

As I understand the confused history, U.M.& M. TV Corp. bought the film library in 1955, then sold it to National Telefilm Associates the following year. Apparently, during the course of transfer of ownership, there were prints of some cartoons with both UM and NTA trademarks, although the copyrights were in the name of U.M. & M. In a few cases, the date was in error. Starting in 1957, through 1964, the copyrights were renewed in the name of U.M. & M. Although Paramount stipulated that its name be eliminated from the cartoons, Paramount seemed to have retained certain rights. The domestic rights were supposedly "leased" in this sale, which included theatrical distribution rights as well.

The UM prints generally were better than NTA prints, particularly color prints. And while UM remade the color titles in a font similar to Times New Roman in yellow on a red background, this was better than the NTA approach, which silmply blotted and blanked out the Paramount name over the original title frames.

Did U.M.&M. actually have a chance to distribute the shorts before the NTA buyout?

Also, I noticed that Warner Brothers was a defendent in the lawsuit that Max Fleischer filed, when the cartoons were sold. How did Warner Brothers get involved way back then?