If you've seen the Disney movie "Frozen", you've probably seen a teaser trailer for the upcoming Disney film, Maleficent. This appears to be a live-action re-imaging of Sleeping Beauty, told through the point of view of the villain Maleficent and not Princess Aurora. There was a little talk of it in the Frozen thread which prompted me to start a new thread about it.
I'm curious what everybody's interest level for this is. I didn't know what it was at first until I saw the spinning wheel and then the thorn-forest coming up from the ground. After the preview ended, my first thought was, oh great, another Snow White and the Huntsman - a live-action train-wreck of a classic Disney kids film with a cool villain. However, when I read a little bit more about it and the plotline (prequel stuff dealing with Maleficent's character before she was evil), I'm becoming more interested. The one thing I'm afraid of is Disney making her out to be something else than what they originally created - the villain from the original Sleeping Beauty film is probably one of the most-recognized and best "witches" from the Disney princess films and she's genuinely regarded as one of the top villains of all time. If you mess with that and show that she was originally pure-hearted and good, but was "seduced" to evil somehow, then I'm afraid it might ruin the awesome-evil reputation that she currently has.
Another recent Hollywood villain that got a "pure-hearted" prequel treatment was the Wicked Witch of the West in last year's OZ, Great and Powerful film. She was another well-recognized movie villain but was presented as a "good witch" at the beginning of the film and later after she turns "evil", she is shown to have somewhat of a soft-side after OZ tells her she is allowed to come back to the Emerald City if goodness can find its way into her heart again. I don't think this "good-witch" treatment to a classic evil villain sat well with to many Oz fans (regardless of what you thought of Mila Kunis's take on the character).
I'm also hoping that we don't get the Kristin Stewart/Snow-White treatment from Elle Fanning who plays Princess Aurora in this film. For reference, I inserted a link to Snow White and the Huntsman thread - I think most everybody agreed that even though C Theron played a visually-stunning witch, it's a film that probably shouldn't have been made: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=420404
1. I dont like Elle Fanning as Aurora.
2. Im mixed on Jolie as Maleficent because it either has to be Ledger's Joker level or it will forever leave me with the 'theres something missing' element.
3. If this isnt a version where Maleficent eats the knight and wins then its a fail.
4. If this was closer to the original grimness of the old folk/fairy tales then this could be so amazing... but since its Disney i doubt it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
1. I dont like Elle Fanning as Aurora.
2. Im mixed on Jolie as Maleficent because it either has to be Ledger's Joker level or it will forever leave me with the 'theres something missing' element.
3. If this isnt a version where Maleficent eats the knight and wins then its a fail.
4. If this was closer to the original grimness of the old folk/fairy tales then this could be so amazing... but since its Disney i doubt it.
Interesting points.
1. I didn't know much about Elle Fanning and started to read up on her a bit. Even though she's only 15, she's acted and starred in a good amount of films and has bee nominated for awards here and there (not Academy or Golden Globes, but nominated nonetheless), so it's quite feasible she has the acting "chops". There are 2 concerns I have, 1) if you follow the Disney movie and I think the original tale, the faeries blessed the Princess with many things, among them the gift of beauty; nothing against Elle Fanning, but no matter how much makeup you put on her, does she strike you as someone gifted with beauty (strictly based upon the teaser trailer)? 2) From the teaser, it appears that she has somewhat of an English accent which doesn't really come across that well, IMO; I'm wondering why the director decided to cast an American actress for this role if that's what they were after? I'm already starting to get flashbacks to Kristin Stewart in Snow White and the Huntsman.
2. Since Maleficent seems to be the central character in the film and the Joker was a supporting role in The Dark Knight, I don't think the character will achieve the same level of villain as Ledger did. The Joker was already the Joker and we didn't know all the events of his past (other than him recounting his wife telling him he needed to smile more) so everytime he appeared on screen it was great since it was just villain and nothing else. I get the feeling that we're going to learn of Maleficent's history before her heart turned to stone (as Disney's tagline put it) so I don't think she'll be at the Joker's level. Now, from the teaser and still set images, I must say that Jolie certainly looks the part and she really could come off as a powerful dark fairy if done properly.
3. I don't know the original fairy tale that well so I tried looking it up and couldn't find anything on Maleficent consuming a knight and "winning". Just curious where I could find that material.
4. I haven't seen anything anywhere related to what the rating for the film is - PG or PG-13. Snow White and the Huntsman was PG-13 so it could very well be the same. The running time isn't kid-friendly at 147 min; typically Disney films are 90-100 minutes so kids can sit all the way through them. I'm guessing that the film will definitely be darker and more grim than Disney's film - we'll just have to wait and see how dark.
There are discussions on the 'Net (mostly in the IMDB boards) that the script was leaked over a year ago. Many fans have noticed that the scene in the teaser involving the Princess and Maleficent is almost word-per-word from the leaked script and they are taking the script as "real". Obviously scripts change many times during filming and I think this script certainly has changed since the release date was moved once from March 2014 to May 2014, and on the Wiki page if even states the opening was reshot in the Fall of 2013.
It will have alot of competition in May; Amazing Spider Man 2, another animated Oz movie, Godzilla, X-Men, and then in early June you have another Tom Cruse sci-fi vehicle (Edge of Tomorrow) and another kids movie (How to Train your Dragon 2) so it doesn't have much time to make money. I think it's saying something that Disney is putting it in-between so many summer blockbusters.
Elle Fanning's a lovely young woman, guys, and a pretty darn good actress for her age too. And if you're going to complain about American performers donning British accents... well, Angelina Jolie ain't exactly an Etonian either.
And what are that Welshman Christian Bale and Australian Heath Ledger doing playing Batman and the Joker? Surely Christopher Nolan should have cast Americans in those roles!
Faerie is more than a race, its an entirely different type of being whose identity and behavior is more dictated by its magical essence than its personality. Its like a raw piece of magic or elemental energy given personality.
No, I'm sorry to say that you're mistaken. The Fair Folk are simply an offshoot of the hominid family tree, apparently a gracile subspecies of Homo neanderthalensis, although they were described by Linnaeus as a separate species, Homo juvenalis. They are gifted with a genetic mutation for extreme longevity, and though they are no innately cleverer than any other hominid, their lifespans gave them a long time to master the scientific disciplines. Fairy technology - sufficiently advanced so as to be indistinguishable from magic - let them dominate the world for thirty millennia between about 120,000 and 90,000 BC, and they enslaved all the other humanoids: humans, trolls, sasquatches and woodwoses, even the tritons who would later found Atlantis. But they were incautious around the giants, whom they considered the stupidest and least threatening members of the family, and allowed them to perform menial labor in their most advanced laboratories. The giants slowly stole and accumulated the fairies' scientific secrets, and after thousands of years and dozens of generations of plotting, they finally unleashed the terrible fruits of their labors: an airborne biological weapon, cunningly targeted at the fairy genome, striking its victims with total sterility, pumped into the atmosphere around the world at widespread fortified locations (which still stand today, as those mysterious circles of megalithic stone). The cataclysmic slave revolt they instigated at the same time was almost an afterthought.
And the fairies were caught totally off guard. Not only did their empire collapse utterly, their very species had its future irrevocably extinguished. They retreated deep underground and into the most remote wilderness places of the world, and there they may still live out their immortal lives, knowing that their population can only ever grow smaller as they are claimed by violence or accident or ennui, and that the only way they can enjoy hearing the laughter of children again is by stealing them from one of the fertile races. But all did not go well for the giants either. Flush with the hubris of total victory, they recklessly deployed the technology that the fairies had guarded so jealously. They soon developed a popular sport, which was played something like humans today play billiards, only with continental weather patterns rather than balls on a table. Within a mere few decades, this game caused an irreversible climatological chain reaction that plunged the planet into the Ice Age. Perhaps the fairies were right after all: the giants were stupid.
There are few reliable records of encounters with fairies in modern times. Carl Linnaeus discovered an enclave in 1764, apparently peaceably, and included his description in the 12th Edition of Systema Naturae. The Darling Incident of 1866 seems to have involved fairies in some capacity, although details are hard to separate from fiction. The best-recorded encounter was in 1898, when Theodore Roosevelt led his Rough Riders into one of the last great fairy-palaces beneath San Juan Hill to rescue his kidnapped infant son Quentin Roosevelt. The Rough Riders killed nearly a dozen fairies in this action and recovered their bodies for science, as well as returning young Quentin safely to the world of sunlight and air. Most of the recovered specimens now reside in the Smithsonian, but one was loaned to the Army Air Force in 1947 and is kept at the Groom Lake Facility. There have been no confirmed fairy encounters since that battle; Roosevelt, presumably, left quite an impression.
The moral of this sad history is, of course...
Fictional characters are whatever the hell the writer wants them to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, I'm sorry to say that you're mistaken. The Fair Folk are simply an offshoot of the hominid family tree, apparently a gracile subspecies of Homo neanderthalensis, although they were described by Linnaeus as a separate species, Homo juvenalis. They are gifted with a genetic mutation for extreme longevity, and though they are no innately cleverer than any other hominid, their lifespans gave them a long time to master the scientific disciplines. Fairy technology - sufficiently advanced so as to be indistinguishable from magic - let them dominate the world for thirty millennia between about 120,000 and 90,000 BC, and they enslaved all the other humanoids: humans, trolls, sasquatches and woodwoses, even the tritons who would later found Atlantis. But they were incautious around the giants, whom they considered the stupidest and least threatening members of the family, and allowed them to perform menial labor in their most advanced laboratories. The giants slowly stole and accumulated the fairies' scientific secrets, and after thousands of years and dozens of generations of plotting, they finally unleashed the terrible fruits of their labors: an airborne biological weapon, cunningly targeted at the fairy genome, striking its victims with total sterility, pumped into the atmosphere around the world at widespread fortified locations (which still stand today, as those mysterious circles of megalithic stone). The cataclysmic slave revolt they instigated at the same time was almost an afterthought.
And the fairies were caught totally off guard. Not only did their empire collapse utterly, their very species had its future irrevocably extinguished. They retreated deep underground and into the most remote wilderness places of the world, and there they may still live out their immortal lives, knowing that their population can only ever grow smaller as they are claimed by violence or accident or ennui, and that the only way they can enjoy hearing the laughter of children again is by stealing them from one of the fertile races. But all did not go well for the giants either. Flush with the hubris of total victory, they recklessly deployed the technology that the fairies had guarded so jealously. They soon developed a popular sport, which was played something like humans today play billiards, only with continental weather patterns rather than balls on a table. Within a mere few decades, this game caused an irreversible climatological chain reaction that plunged the planet into the Ice Age. Perhaps the fairies were right after all: the giants were stupid.
There are few reliable records of encounters with fairies in modern times. Carl Linnaeus discovered an enclave in 1764, apparently peaceably, and included his description in the 12th Edition of Systema Naturae. The Darling Incident of 1866 seems to have involved fairies in some capacity, although details are hard to separate from fiction. The best-recorded encounter was in 1898, when Theodore Roosevelt led his Rough Riders into one of the last great fairy-palaces beneath San Juan Hill to rescue his kidnapped infant son Quentin Roosevelt. The Rough Riders killed nearly a dozen fairies in this action and recovered their bodies for science, as well as returning young Quentin safely to the world of sunlight and air. Most of the recovered specimens now reside in the Smithsonian, but one was loaned to the Army Air Force in 1947 and is kept at the Groom Lake Facility. There have been no confirmed fairy encounters since that battle; Roosevelt, presumably, left quite an impression.
The moral of this sad history is, of course...
Fictional characters are whatever the hell the writer wants them to be.
And the fact that fairies can be different thing in different fictions justifies them changing what she is for what reason? Her being such a powerful fairy was the reason why those three other fairies couldn't just reverse the curse but instead had to modify it was a pretty important part of both the movie "Sleeping Beauty" and the folk tale it was based on.
Maleficent is one of the more iconic Disney villians and I cringed when I heard a trailer for this movie because of changes like this. At one point in the trailer, Princess Aurora is talking to Maleficent who is hiding in the bushes and Aurora is saying how she isn't afraid of Maleficent and Maleficent responds that she should be. This sort of counters the fact that in the movie the princess is being hidden from the villain by those three fairies and Maleficent shouldn't know where she is at that point.
I hope this will be a good movie, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps they should have just come up with a new villain to be the protagonist instead of all of this retcon in order to fit Maleficent into the role.
BTW, if a trope applies to a type of creature more times than not in fiction that trope being applied isn't a fallacy. For example, there are certain tropes that come to mind when you think of vampires or zombies, the fact that there are exceptions doesn't change those tropes any more than "Artemis Fowl" books or whatever you just came up with changes the tropes normally associated with fairies.
And the fact that fairies can be different thing in different fictions justifies them changing what she is for what reason? Her being such a powerful fairy was the reason why those three other fairies couldn't just reverse the curse but instead had to modify it was a pretty important part of both the movie "Sleeping Beauty" and the folk tale it was based on.
She's never described as a fairy in the movie. Her powerful magic stands without explanation, beyond a possible implication that it's classic deal-with-the-Devil witchcraft.
Maleficent is one of the more iconic Disney villians and I cringed when I heard a trailer for this movie because of changes like this. At one point in the trailer, Princess Aurora is talking to Maleficent who is hiding in the bushes and Aurora is saying how she isn't afraid of Maleficent and Maleficent responds that she should be. This sort of counters the fact that in the movie the princess is being hidden from the villain by those three fairies and Maleficent shouldn't know where she is at that point.
No, in fact, the fourth Good Fairy, Fungus, was a mole for Maleficent feeding her information on the princess' whereabouts the entire time. Disney wrote her out of the movie to simplify the plot.
I hope this will be a good movie, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps they should have just come up with a new villain to be the protagonist instead of all of this retcon in order to fit Maleficent into the role.
Maleficent is the entire point of this movie. The title presents a clue. And in all seriousness, we don't know how much of the story will change. All we see in the trailer is that at some point, Maleficent and Aurora will have a conversation. That doesn't need to be a major change - hell, there's a point in Sleeping Beauty where it could have happened - and at any rate, having the good guy and the bad guy play off each other at least a little bit is generally considered good storytelling practice. (Sleeping Beauty got away with it because the Good Fairies are the functional protagonists throughout.)
BTW, if a trope applies to a type of creature more times than not in fiction that trope being applied isn't a fallacy. For example, there are certain tropes that come to mind when you think of vampires or zombies, the fact that there are exceptions doesn't change those tropes any more than "Artemis Fowl" books or whatever you just came up with changes the tropes normally associated with fairies.
The tropes associated with vampires have changed, and dramatically so, over the past twenty or thirty years. Zombie tropes experienced a similar but even more drastic change when the Romero movies first appeared. And what pstmdrn described isn't exactly a standard fairy trope anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, in fact, the fourth Good Fairy, Fungus, was a mole for Maleficent feeding her information on the princess' whereabouts the entire time. Disney wrote her out of the movie to simplify the plot.
Source? That is assuming that this isn't just fan fiction which doesn't count because it isn't part of the original story nor the Disney movie.
Lesson two: There is no fact in fiction.
Yes there is. Fiction needs internal logic in order to work. If Eoin Colfer where to do another book set in the Artemis Fowl universe one would logically expect the fairies in it to follow the same rules that where set down in the previous books. If it doesn't, like another type of fairies coming out of nowhere then there had better be a good reason for it to be there rather than it being handwaved in.
Maleficent is the entire point of this movie. The title presents a clue. And in all seriousness, we don't know how much of the story will change. All we see in the trailer is that at some point, Maleficent and Aurora will have a conversation. That doesn't need to be a major change - hell, there's a point in Sleeping Beauty where it could have happened - and at any rate, having the good guy and the bad guy play off each other at least a little bit is generally considered good storytelling practice. (Sleeping Beauty got away with it because the Good Fairies are the functional protagonists throughout.)
The tropes associated with vampires have changed, and dramatically so, over the past twenty or thirty years. Zombie tropes experienced a similar but even more drastic change when the Romero movies first appeared. And what pstmdrn described isn't exactly a standard fairy trope anyway.
Have you read the book "Wicked" or watched the play? It's clearly a revisionist take on the movie Wizard of Oz which in turn had taken liberties with the original book. I've read the book and loved it and part of that reason was because it was a revisionist and it was so good at it and it was upfront honest about what it was. If this movie is supposed to be Disney's attempt at doing a Wicked for Maleficent and they where that honest about it, then I would judge it differently than otherwise. For example, the 1925 film version of Wizard of Oz was horrible because it changed so much the source material wasn't even recognizable and unlike "Wicked" it wasn't a revisionist version of the book.
BTW, tropes do evolve over time but they still have some sort of internal logic or they don't work. I'm not saying they are set in stone, but some consistency is needed. For example, if a fiction where to have a group of characters who didn't drink blood (or drain anything else from people), where not undead, nor convert people into themselves to increase their numbers (or as part of draining blood/whatever) but instead got their energy from photosynthesis, where completely alive, and spontaneously cloned themselves via pods they pooped out of their butts after they danced in the sun long enough, by your logic those could be vampires. There are no rules right? Words are meaningless and can be tossed around like a fruit salad right? If someone wanted to, they could make a Tolkenish world where the little peaceful homebodies with hairy feet are called Orcs, the tall pointy eared treehuggers are called Halflings, and the unnatural green skinned war obsessed race are the Elves, would you really say it wouldn't matter?
Here is a lesson for you: Words have meanings even in fiction.
Source? That is assuming that this isn't just fan fiction which doesn't count because it isn't part of the original story nor the Disney movie.
It's from the real, historical truth on which both the fairy tale and the Disney movie are based, and if a new story deviates too much from that real, historical truth, then it is bad and wrong.
Yes there is. Fiction needs internal logic in order to work.[ If Eoin Colfer where to do another book set in the Artemis Fowl universe one would logically expect the fairies in it to follow the same rules that where set down in the previous books. If it doesn't, like another type of fairies coming out of nowhere then there had better be a good reason for it to be there rather than it being handwaved in.
First word in the term "internal logic"? "Internal". It is not only unnecessary, but by definition impossible, for there to be "internal logic" between two separate stories. If you read The Once and Future King then go watch Excalibur, your mind does not revolt because the incompatible events and timelines are illogical!
Have you read the book "Wicked" or watched the play? It's clearly a revisionist take on the movie Wizard of Oz which in turn had taken liberties with the original book. I've read the book and loved it and part of that reason was because it was a revisionist and it was so good at it and it was upfront honest about what it was. If this movie is supposed to be Disney's attempt at doing a Wicked for Maleficent and they where that honest about it, then I would judge it differently than otherwise.
How is a story "honest" or "dishonest" about being a revision? I would think that if you start telling a story, and something different happens from the last time someone else told the story, it should be pretty obvious prima facie that you're doing a revision. What more do you need to do?
For example, the 1925 film version of Wizard of Oz was horrible because it changed so much the source material wasn't even recognizable and unlike "Wicked" it wasn't a revisionist version of the book.
Do you have an example that perhaps some of the rest of us have actually seen, that hasn't been utterly overshadowed by another version that's come to be regarded as one of the all-time cinematic classics (and which, incidentally, also changed a lot from the book)?
I'm not saying they are set in stone, but some consistency is needed. For example, if a fiction where to have a group of characters who didn't drink blood (or drain anything else from people), where not undead, nor convert people into themselves to increase their numbers (or as part of draining blood/whatever) but instead got their energy from photosynthesis, where completely alive, and spontaneously cloned themselves via pods they pooped out of their butts after they danced in the sun long enough, by your logic those could be vampires. There are no rules right? Words are meaningless and can be tossed around like a fruit salad right? If someone wanted to, they could make a Tolkenish world where the little peaceful homebodies with hairy feet are called Orcs, the tall pointy eared treehuggers are called Halflings, and the unnatural green skinned war obsessed race are the Elves, would you really say it wouldn't matter?
Concerning the meanings of words, there is an immense amount that could be said, but perhaps it would be better said over in the Philosophy forum. To constrain this to the subject of words in fiction, I'll just note that words can serve a variety of purposes and that a good writer chooses every word wisely so as to maximize its effect on the reader. They always matter, but not in the way that you imply. If it served our hypothetical fantasist's literary purpose to, say, challenge and subvert our preconceptions or make some sort of comment on how tired the Tolkien-ripoff cliches have become or whatever, then sure, more power to him. Even if the words he were using in highly unexpected ways were those which referred to things that actually exist, like "dog" and "chair" and "table", this would not automatically be a bad and wrong decision. See James Joyce.
It may be worth considering that, prior to Tolkien, an "elf" to most people was one of Santa's little helpers. And in early drafts of his legendarium, the branch of Elvenkind that he would eventually call the Noldor were "gnomes". A "goblin" was a small, troublemaking sprite; a "hobgoblin" in particular was Shakespeare's Puck. And an "orc", if you happened to speak one of the few English dialects where the word meant anything at all, was either a man-eating giant (standard English "ogre"), an underworld spirit (Latin and D&D-ish "Orcus"), or a large monochromatic cetacean ("orca"). (It's unclear which is meant when the word orcneas appears in Beowulf.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
*clap clap*
I've come to the conclusion that you are trolling me. Historical truth? What does that have to do with fiction? Or for that matter, what do those fan fictions you keep posting in this thread have anything to do the stories that we are talking about? Saying that stories don't need to make sense because stories are different from each other never mind the fact that if we have Story B derived from Story A one can hope there is some connection between the two? Really? Parody, sequel, revision are all the same to you? View them all in the same light?
BTW, I'm aware of the changes from the book to the classic movie for Wizard of Oz. You even quoted that part my message so why did you post, "(and which, incidentally, also changed a lot from the book)" like you are correcting me?
In short, I don't think this is turning out to be an honest discussion and I think I'm out. But once again. *clap clap*
*clap clap*
I've come to the conclusion that you are trolling me.
I confess I may be enjoying myself a bit at the expense of your stick-in-the-mud approach to entertainment. But I assure you, my intentions are honest.
Historical truth? What does that have to do with fiction?
Nothing at all. That's the point. Why do you keep talking as if there were an actual fact of the matter, and fictional stories could be "right" or "wrong"?
Saying that stories don't need to make sense because stories are different from each other never mind the fact that if we have Story B derived from Story A one can hope there is some connection between the two? Really? Parody, sequel, revision are all the same to you? View them all in the same light?
Don't exaggerate my position. A connection is one thing, slavish fidelity quite another. Recall what you're actually objecting to in this thread: the notion that Aurora and Maleficent come face to face, because it didn't happen in Sleeping Beauty. You're overlooking all the other connections that are quite clearly visible in the trailer - the costumes and characterizations, the wall of thorns - to nitpick on this single difference. What's more, it's a difference that's probably necessary for the story, if Aurora is supposed to be an actual character this time around.
Neither of us have seen Maleficent. Maybe it will suck. But if it sucks, it will not be because Maleficent and Aurora do something they didn't do in Sleeping Beauty. And by singlemindedly fixating on that thing as though it were a cardinal sin, all you're really doing is ruining your own potential enjoyment of the film. Criticize the movie for actual faults: bad acting, bad pacing, bad effects, whatever. But don't criticize it for failing to adhere to some nonexistent "facts". One retelling of a story is as valid as any other, as long as it's told well in its own right.
BTW, I'm aware of the changes from the book to the classic movie for Wizard of Oz. You even quoted that part my message so why did you post, "(and which, incidentally, also changed a lot from the book)" like you are correcting me?
Hmm? Your post referred the 1925 adaptation, which is the silent version that nobody ever watches anymore. You said nothing about the 1939 musical with Judy Garland - the classic. If you're telling me now that you meant to be trashing the 1939 film... well, you're entitled to your opinion, but if this fidelity fixation of yours leads you to reject a movie that has been overwhelmingly well received for generations, perhaps that ought to indicate to you that you're taking it too far and only hurting yourself with it. The changes certainly aren't bothering anybody else.
And you never answered my question: what makes Wicked "honest" and the movie "dishonest"?
According to this trailer Maleficent is either an elf or fae. Not sure how I feel about that right now but its enough to make me want to see the movie.
I feel like i just saw a clip work between the old Sleeping beauty scenes, some narnia a dash of tomb raider and maybe some adult video based around a popular MMO that i shouldnt probably name...
So far this is my "ok, but not theater worthy" judgement... ill wait for more stuff or an actual review before i revisit my opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
According to this trailer Maleficent is either an elf or fae. Not sure how I feel about that right now but its enough to make me want to see the movie.
Something with pointy ears, anyway. But those horns are also apparently part her head, which typically represents something a bit more... diabolical. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose. What caught my attention more than her physiology was the fact that Disney seems to be trying pretty hard to set her up as Maybe A Good Guy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
From the Disney site for the movie, "Maleficent" explores the untold story of Disney’s most iconic villain from the 1959 classic “Sleeping Beauty" and the elements of her betrayal that ultimately turn her pure heart to stone. Driven by revenge and a fierce desire to protect the moors over which she presides, Maleficent cruelly places an irrevocable curse upon the human king’s newborn infant Aurora. As the child grows, Aurora is caught in the middle of the seething conflict between the forest kingdom she has grown to love and the human kingdom that holds her legacy. Maleficent realizes that Aurora may hold the key to peace in the land and is forced to take drastic actions that will change both worlds forever."
This description of the movie appears to put Maleficent in some sort of forest protector role, protecting the "forest kingdom she has grown to love" until she is betrayed by humans, possibly by King Stephan somehow. Although interesting, I also fear that this will turn an iconic Disney villain (arguably the best Disney villain) into a sympathetic character that will ultimately ruin her reputation as an all-time great villain.
There are several examples of Hollywood turning iconic villains into something else entirely; here are a few that come to mind:
- For many fans, the "nooooo" scene in Star Wars: Episode III turned Darth Vader from coolest sci-fi villain ever into a running gag reel. Fans want to remember Vader choking out Imperial officials and generally not caring about anybody or anything other than the Empire itself. Yes, we knew in the original trilogy that he was once a Jedi and was "turned', but Episode III really turned some fans off instead.
- The Shape, or Michael Myers character from the original Halloween movie was once the iconic slasher villain. Other iconic slasher film villains had somewhat sympathetic backstories (camp counselors not caring about a drowning Jason and angry parents burning Freddy alive), but even though we knew Michael's original victims, there was never an explanation other than the Doctor telling us that he was "pure evil" with the "blackest eyes". There was no simple explanation on what made Michael evil - he was just simply evil and that terrified us somewhat. Over the years, from the ridiculous backstories about Michael being involved in a cult to the new Rob Zombie "mask" interpretations, he has been reduced to "just another slasher bad guy" in many fans eyes.
- The Wicked Witch of the West from the Judy Garland Oz film was another iconic villain. We didn't know how or why there were two wicked witches and two good witches, they were just simply wicked and good. We didn't really need to know the reason why, either. Well, in the new Great and Powerful Oz film, we find out that the Wicked Witch of the West really wasn't wicked to begin with, but turned by her sister who was really the original wicked one. This really left a sour taste in the mouths of fans of the Margaret Hamilton's take in the 1939 film.
All that being said, I feel that although learning about backstories are cool and interesting, I'm not sure it needs to be shown in a film. In the Disney 1959 Sleeping Beauty film, you realize there is somewhat of a backstory when the three "good" faeries (Flora, Fauna & Merryweather) tell Maleficent she is unwanted at Princess Aurora's christening. Why did the three faeries and seemingly everyone else at the christening not want Maleficent there? What cruel acts did she do to obtain a reputation of not being wanted at an event that the whole kingdom is celebrating? I think the question for most fans of Maleficent is, "does it matter"?
This is coming out this weekend and early reviews are in - only in the 60% range on RT. This opened in Europe already I believe and the reviews there really say the same thing as the US reviews and they all say what I was afraid of - visually appealing and Jolie is good, but thin on plot and story explanation. I know the target audience is children here, but I'm hoping that one of these fairy-tale "retelling" movies can have enough story/plot strength for adults while also having enough visualization and lightheartedness for children.
I think one of the general appeals from this movie was the actual backstory and explanation of Maleficent's motivations from the 1959 Disney film - why did she want to curse the daughter of the king? Because she wasn't invited to the party? Why is she evil in the first place? I think there would be plenty of "older" audiences that love the old Disney film to go to the theater to find out, but it appears that adults may leave the theater with more questions than answers.
Saw it on wednesday....
spoilers because thats the rule
Pros:
1. I like the fact that they kept some of the original lines from the first film, it gives it that organic overlap while still making it its own movie, and i really appreciate the effort put there.
2. The crow character was brilliant, truly this is one part where i loved the added character and details presented (i think the overall character waas a bit bland but i think the overall effect is rather good, i mean a Crow thats also the dashing rogue? yeah i liked it, plus some of his comic relief moments where really good).
3. I liked that they made the three good fairies look like incompetent idiots.... it kinda fits my perception of pixies overall...
4. Philips is just an idiot prince kid and is not the magical mary sue hero.... i dont know why that makes me feel good but it does.
5. Marsh Wurm/Dragon.... that thing should have been more prominent...
Cons:
1. They gave maleficent a 'relatable' backstory and an 'oh but wait im actually the good one all along' cliche...
2. They made her 'ride of towards the sunset' so to speak which i find to be rather.... well dissapointing.
3. I wanted to see more of the treants... they were 'classically handsome' after all....
4. I hated young maleficent, child acting is always such a hard thing to do right since the kids lack the overall experience and proper training adults have that it makes it awkward and a drag to watch at times.
5. The CGI.... was good at times and bad at others.
6. So wait the farm boy gets the wings and the king gives him the entire kingdom? not only that but none of the other boyards/contenders/pretneders whatever noticed he did this and tried to stop him/swindle him out of his prize to claim the glory? and for that matter how the **** did a peasant farm boy work his way into becoming the personal attendant of the king???? and how come no one tried to assassinate him afterwards? i mean the old king just crowned a god damned peasant as king, i just cant picture the nobles not trying to kill this 'upstart'....
7. They copied the 'true love' moment from Frozen... it felt like disney going "oh people liked this part of frozen because it was a smart and unexpected twist on ingrained preconceptions regarding the princess movies.... lets tack it to Maleficent also!!!"
Conclusions:
I would give it a 4-5/10, i dont regret watching it with friends, but i wouldnt have felt bad if we had skipped it and just done something else either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I saw this last night in IMAX 3D. I agree for the most part with the critics and with poster Sepiriel - 5/10, maybe even a tad lower.
Pros:
- Some of the visuals were great, especially in IMAX 3D; especially the scenes where Maleficent uses her wings to fly above the clouds - she almost looks like an angel with the clouds/sunlight in the background. I was really thinking of some Angel magic cards when this was on the screen.
- I thought Jolie was a great choice for the lead role and she really played it well. Loved the baby Aurora scene and the shot where Maleficent looks over her shoulder at the spinning wheel. She looked and acted the part beautifully, even if I disagreed with making Maleficent somewhat of a "good guy" vs. an evil fairy in the Disney movie.
- I know there was some criticism of the casting of whomever played Aurora, but I disagree - I thought she looked and acted the few parts she had nicely. She looked and acted like a young, beautiful, graceful princess from the "gifts" the fairies bestowed upon her, except for one example in my "con" section below.
- One of the few plot points and writing I liked was how Maleficent had her wings stolen from her by Stefan so he could gain power.
Cons:
- There were also some bad visuals; there were certain scenes that were just obviously filmed in front of a blue screen or on a film stage (young Maleficent flying; scene were Prince Phillip first appears, etc). I know you have to film in front of a blue/green screen for certain effects, but you should be so engaged in the movie that you don't notice it yet.
- I actually felt the film was rushed. It seemed that there was no slowing down to explain things; just went right from young Maleficent to 16-yr old Maleficent; from farmboy Stefan right to evil King Stefan; from the 3 fairies liking Maleficent in the Moors to hating her and bowing down in front of the king immediately after, etc. I know this is a children's film, but this one could have used an extra 20-30 min to space things apart a bit more. Very choppy editing and it really felt like this thing went through several rewrites before the Disney execs finally settled on the final product.
- I liked the casting of Jolie and Aurora, but whomever they cast as Stefan was the wrong choice - just horrific acting and just not convincing of someone who would stop at nothing to gain power. Perhaps it was the editing, but an example of the wooden acting was when Stefan went to check on the ironworkers he hired and they were asleep because it was night-time - he doesn't sound or act like a king possessed with the notion that there must be iron built to combat Maleficent.
- Speaking of making iron, I could be wrong but I believe Stefan wants ironworkers early on after Maleficent curses Aurora. So after a long period of time, the most iron they can make is some armor, a room with the iron "thorns" and an iron net? It doesn't seem like they did much after all that time.
- What about when Aurora learns that Maleficent cursed her? She runs away after learning it was true, goes to the castle, meets her father, gets thrown in her room, pricks her finger and is delighted to see Maleficent after she awakens? I know she's graceful and all, but this was a little bit too "soon" to just fall into her "fairy Godmother's" arms again after the awful thing she did.
- Speaking of the kiss, the movie seems to suggest at the end that Prince Phillip will end up with Aurora after he appears at her "crowning" ceremony in the Moors. If his kiss wasn't a "true love's first kiss", why would they end up together?
- Why did Aurora give up on her father so easily? I mean, she comes into the castle for the first time in her life and he rudely greets her and throws her into her room until her 16th birthday is up and then right after she awakens, she turns on him to save Maleficent? I know she goes into another room and sees Maleficent's wings in hanging up, but would she know that it was her father that stolen them from Maleficent? Even if she realized it was him, he's your father and you're ready to give up on him after 1 meeting? What happened to her "grace" that was bestowed upon her?
- What about the queen? There was a scene where it semi-explains that she's on her deathbed I think when Stefan is gazing at Maleficent's wings on the wall, but it doesn't explain anything. Wouldn't Aurora want to know where her mother was, too?
For me, this was strike two and three for Disney's, real-life "retelling" of fairy tales movies from someone else's perspective. Strike one was Snow White and the Huntsman and I think I've had enough after Maleficent. After seeing the first trailer when I took my daughter to see Frozen, I was real excited because I thought it really looked great, and as is the case so many times, the end product of the movie doesn't really live up to the hype (at least the "hype" in my mind that I had).
Show White and the Huntsman was Universal, not Disney.
You're right and I apologize.
My point is still the same; we've had a recent string of live-action fairy-tales in recent years - Red Riding Hood starring Amanda Seyfriend, Burton's Alice on Wonderland, Snow White and the Huntsman and now Maleficent. All of them have been a disappointment to me and unless my daughter is clamoring to see the next one coming out in March 2015 - Disney's live action Cinderella - I'll probably be waiting to rent vs. spending the money at the theater.
Show White and the Huntsman was Universal, not Disney.
You're right and I apologize.
My point is still the same; we've had a recent string of live-action fairy-tales in recent years - Red Riding Hood starring Amanda Seyfriend, Burton's Alice on Wonderland, Snow White and the Huntsman and now Maleficent. All of them have been a disappointment to me and unless my daughter is clamoring to see the next one coming out in March 2015 - Disney's live action Cinderella - I'll probably be waiting to rent vs. spending the money at the theater.
You forgot Hansel & Grettel.
Now with this movie done im going to jump on MovieBob's joke and say we need a Jafar movie now.
Ultimate Cosmic POWER!!!!!!!
Tiny beany living space
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I'm curious what everybody's interest level for this is. I didn't know what it was at first until I saw the spinning wheel and then the thorn-forest coming up from the ground. After the preview ended, my first thought was, oh great, another Snow White and the Huntsman - a live-action train-wreck of a classic Disney kids film with a cool villain. However, when I read a little bit more about it and the plotline (prequel stuff dealing with Maleficent's character before she was evil), I'm becoming more interested. The one thing I'm afraid of is Disney making her out to be something else than what they originally created - the villain from the original Sleeping Beauty film is probably one of the most-recognized and best "witches" from the Disney princess films and she's genuinely regarded as one of the top villains of all time. If you mess with that and show that she was originally pure-hearted and good, but was "seduced" to evil somehow, then I'm afraid it might ruin the awesome-evil reputation that she currently has.
Another recent Hollywood villain that got a "pure-hearted" prequel treatment was the Wicked Witch of the West in last year's OZ, Great and Powerful film. She was another well-recognized movie villain but was presented as a "good witch" at the beginning of the film and later after she turns "evil", she is shown to have somewhat of a soft-side after OZ tells her she is allowed to come back to the Emerald City if goodness can find its way into her heart again. I don't think this "good-witch" treatment to a classic evil villain sat well with to many Oz fans (regardless of what you thought of Mila Kunis's take on the character).
I'm also hoping that we don't get the Kristin Stewart/Snow-White treatment from Elle Fanning who plays Princess Aurora in this film. For reference, I inserted a link to Snow White and the Huntsman thread - I think most everybody agreed that even though C Theron played a visually-stunning witch, it's a film that probably shouldn't have been made: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=420404
2. Im mixed on Jolie as Maleficent because it either has to be Ledger's Joker level or it will forever leave me with the 'theres something missing' element.
3. If this isnt a version where Maleficent eats the knight and wins then its a fail.
4. If this was closer to the original grimness of the old folk/fairy tales then this could be so amazing... but since its Disney i doubt it.
Interesting points.
1. I didn't know much about Elle Fanning and started to read up on her a bit. Even though she's only 15, she's acted and starred in a good amount of films and has bee nominated for awards here and there (not Academy or Golden Globes, but nominated nonetheless), so it's quite feasible she has the acting "chops". There are 2 concerns I have, 1) if you follow the Disney movie and I think the original tale, the faeries blessed the Princess with many things, among them the gift of beauty; nothing against Elle Fanning, but no matter how much makeup you put on her, does she strike you as someone gifted with beauty (strictly based upon the teaser trailer)? 2) From the teaser, it appears that she has somewhat of an English accent which doesn't really come across that well, IMO; I'm wondering why the director decided to cast an American actress for this role if that's what they were after? I'm already starting to get flashbacks to Kristin Stewart in Snow White and the Huntsman.
2. Since Maleficent seems to be the central character in the film and the Joker was a supporting role in The Dark Knight, I don't think the character will achieve the same level of villain as Ledger did. The Joker was already the Joker and we didn't know all the events of his past (other than him recounting his wife telling him he needed to smile more) so everytime he appeared on screen it was great since it was just villain and nothing else. I get the feeling that we're going to learn of Maleficent's history before her heart turned to stone (as Disney's tagline put it) so I don't think she'll be at the Joker's level. Now, from the teaser and still set images, I must say that Jolie certainly looks the part and she really could come off as a powerful dark fairy if done properly.
3. I don't know the original fairy tale that well so I tried looking it up and couldn't find anything on Maleficent consuming a knight and "winning". Just curious where I could find that material.
4. I haven't seen anything anywhere related to what the rating for the film is - PG or PG-13. Snow White and the Huntsman was PG-13 so it could very well be the same. The running time isn't kid-friendly at 147 min; typically Disney films are 90-100 minutes so kids can sit all the way through them. I'm guessing that the film will definitely be darker and more grim than Disney's film - we'll just have to wait and see how dark.
There are discussions on the 'Net (mostly in the IMDB boards) that the script was leaked over a year ago. Many fans have noticed that the scene in the teaser involving the Princess and Maleficent is almost word-per-word from the leaked script and they are taking the script as "real". Obviously scripts change many times during filming and I think this script certainly has changed since the release date was moved once from March 2014 to May 2014, and on the Wiki page if even states the opening was reshot in the Fall of 2013.
It will have alot of competition in May; Amazing Spider Man 2, another animated Oz movie, Godzilla, X-Men, and then in early June you have another Tom Cruse sci-fi vehicle (Edge of Tomorrow) and another kids movie (How to Train your Dragon 2) so it doesn't have much time to make money. I think it's saying something that Disney is putting it in-between so many summer blockbusters.
I really could get behind it if they simply made her a faerie. If you read about it, the fall of her kingdom causes her to become dark.
[Clan Flamingo]
And what are that Welshman Christian Bale and Australian Heath Ledger doing playing Batman and the Joker? Surely Christopher Nolan should have cast Americans in those roles!
So her temperament should be dictated by her race?
Think that one through again, please.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
[Clan Flamingo]
And the fairies were caught totally off guard. Not only did their empire collapse utterly, their very species had its future irrevocably extinguished. They retreated deep underground and into the most remote wilderness places of the world, and there they may still live out their immortal lives, knowing that their population can only ever grow smaller as they are claimed by violence or accident or ennui, and that the only way they can enjoy hearing the laughter of children again is by stealing them from one of the fertile races. But all did not go well for the giants either. Flush with the hubris of total victory, they recklessly deployed the technology that the fairies had guarded so jealously. They soon developed a popular sport, which was played something like humans today play billiards, only with continental weather patterns rather than balls on a table. Within a mere few decades, this game caused an irreversible climatological chain reaction that plunged the planet into the Ice Age. Perhaps the fairies were right after all: the giants were stupid.
There are few reliable records of encounters with fairies in modern times. Carl Linnaeus discovered an enclave in 1764, apparently peaceably, and included his description in the 12th Edition of Systema Naturae. The Darling Incident of 1866 seems to have involved fairies in some capacity, although details are hard to separate from fiction. The best-recorded encounter was in 1898, when Theodore Roosevelt led his Rough Riders into one of the last great fairy-palaces beneath San Juan Hill to rescue his kidnapped infant son Quentin Roosevelt. The Rough Riders killed nearly a dozen fairies in this action and recovered their bodies for science, as well as returning young Quentin safely to the world of sunlight and air. Most of the recovered specimens now reside in the Smithsonian, but one was loaned to the Army Air Force in 1947 and is kept at the Groom Lake Facility. There have been no confirmed fairy encounters since that battle; Roosevelt, presumably, left quite an impression.
The moral of this sad history is, of course...
Fictional characters are whatever the hell the writer wants them to be.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And the fact that fairies can be different thing in different fictions justifies them changing what she is for what reason? Her being such a powerful fairy was the reason why those three other fairies couldn't just reverse the curse but instead had to modify it was a pretty important part of both the movie "Sleeping Beauty" and the folk tale it was based on.
Maleficent is one of the more iconic Disney villians and I cringed when I heard a trailer for this movie because of changes like this. At one point in the trailer, Princess Aurora is talking to Maleficent who is hiding in the bushes and Aurora is saying how she isn't afraid of Maleficent and Maleficent responds that she should be. This sort of counters the fact that in the movie the princess is being hidden from the villain by those three fairies and Maleficent shouldn't know where she is at that point.
I hope this will be a good movie, but I can't help but wonder if perhaps they should have just come up with a new villain to be the protagonist instead of all of this retcon in order to fit Maleficent into the role.
BTW, if a trope applies to a type of creature more times than not in fiction that trope being applied isn't a fallacy. For example, there are certain tropes that come to mind when you think of vampires or zombies, the fact that there are exceptions doesn't change those tropes any more than "Artemis Fowl" books or whatever you just came up with changes the tropes normally associated with fairies.
No, in fact, the fourth Good Fairy, Fungus, was a mole for Maleficent feeding her information on the princess' whereabouts the entire time. Disney wrote her out of the movie to simplify the plot.
Lesson two: There is no fact in fiction.
Maleficent is the entire point of this movie. The title presents a clue. And in all seriousness, we don't know how much of the story will change. All we see in the trailer is that at some point, Maleficent and Aurora will have a conversation. That doesn't need to be a major change - hell, there's a point in Sleeping Beauty where it could have happened - and at any rate, having the good guy and the bad guy play off each other at least a little bit is generally considered good storytelling practice. (Sleeping Beauty got away with it because the Good Fairies are the functional protagonists throughout.)
The tropes associated with vampires have changed, and dramatically so, over the past twenty or thirty years. Zombie tropes experienced a similar but even more drastic change when the Romero movies first appeared. And what pstmdrn described isn't exactly a standard fairy trope anyway.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Source? That is assuming that this isn't just fan fiction which doesn't count because it isn't part of the original story nor the Disney movie.
Yes there is. Fiction needs internal logic in order to work. If Eoin Colfer where to do another book set in the Artemis Fowl universe one would logically expect the fairies in it to follow the same rules that where set down in the previous books. If it doesn't, like another type of fairies coming out of nowhere then there had better be a good reason for it to be there rather than it being handwaved in.
Have you read the book "Wicked" or watched the play? It's clearly a revisionist take on the movie Wizard of Oz which in turn had taken liberties with the original book. I've read the book and loved it and part of that reason was because it was a revisionist and it was so good at it and it was upfront honest about what it was. If this movie is supposed to be Disney's attempt at doing a Wicked for Maleficent and they where that honest about it, then I would judge it differently than otherwise. For example, the 1925 film version of Wizard of Oz was horrible because it changed so much the source material wasn't even recognizable and unlike "Wicked" it wasn't a revisionist version of the book.
BTW, tropes do evolve over time but they still have some sort of internal logic or they don't work. I'm not saying they are set in stone, but some consistency is needed. For example, if a fiction where to have a group of characters who didn't drink blood (or drain anything else from people), where not undead, nor convert people into themselves to increase their numbers (or as part of draining blood/whatever) but instead got their energy from photosynthesis, where completely alive, and spontaneously cloned themselves via pods they pooped out of their butts after they danced in the sun long enough, by your logic those could be vampires. There are no rules right? Words are meaningless and can be tossed around like a fruit salad right? If someone wanted to, they could make a Tolkenish world where the little peaceful homebodies with hairy feet are called Orcs, the tall pointy eared treehuggers are called Halflings, and the unnatural green skinned war obsessed race are the Elves, would you really say it wouldn't matter?
Here is a lesson for you: Words have meanings even in fiction.
First word in the term "internal logic"? "Internal". It is not only unnecessary, but by definition impossible, for there to be "internal logic" between two separate stories. If you read The Once and Future King then go watch Excalibur, your mind does not revolt because the incompatible events and timelines are illogical!
How is a story "honest" or "dishonest" about being a revision? I would think that if you start telling a story, and something different happens from the last time someone else told the story, it should be pretty obvious prima facie that you're doing a revision. What more do you need to do?
Do you have an example that perhaps some of the rest of us have actually seen, that hasn't been utterly overshadowed by another version that's come to be regarded as one of the all-time cinematic classics (and which, incidentally, also changed a lot from the book)?
There's that I-word again.
Concerning the meanings of words, there is an immense amount that could be said, but perhaps it would be better said over in the Philosophy forum. To constrain this to the subject of words in fiction, I'll just note that words can serve a variety of purposes and that a good writer chooses every word wisely so as to maximize its effect on the reader. They always matter, but not in the way that you imply. If it served our hypothetical fantasist's literary purpose to, say, challenge and subvert our preconceptions or make some sort of comment on how tired the Tolkien-ripoff cliches have become or whatever, then sure, more power to him. Even if the words he were using in highly unexpected ways were those which referred to things that actually exist, like "dog" and "chair" and "table", this would not automatically be a bad and wrong decision. See James Joyce.
It may be worth considering that, prior to Tolkien, an "elf" to most people was one of Santa's little helpers. And in early drafts of his legendarium, the branch of Elvenkind that he would eventually call the Noldor were "gnomes". A "goblin" was a small, troublemaking sprite; a "hobgoblin" in particular was Shakespeare's Puck. And an "orc", if you happened to speak one of the few English dialects where the word meant anything at all, was either a man-eating giant (standard English "ogre"), an underworld spirit (Latin and D&D-ish "Orcus"), or a large monochromatic cetacean ("orca"). (It's unclear which is meant when the word orcneas appears in Beowulf.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I've come to the conclusion that you are trolling me. Historical truth? What does that have to do with fiction? Or for that matter, what do those fan fictions you keep posting in this thread have anything to do the stories that we are talking about? Saying that stories don't need to make sense because stories are different from each other never mind the fact that if we have Story B derived from Story A one can hope there is some connection between the two? Really? Parody, sequel, revision are all the same to you? View them all in the same light?
BTW, I'm aware of the changes from the book to the classic movie for Wizard of Oz. You even quoted that part my message so why did you post, "(and which, incidentally, also changed a lot from the book)" like you are correcting me?
In short, I don't think this is turning out to be an honest discussion and I think I'm out. But once again. *clap clap*
Nothing at all. That's the point. Why do you keep talking as if there were an actual fact of the matter, and fictional stories could be "right" or "wrong"?
Illustration of the above point.
Don't exaggerate my position. A connection is one thing, slavish fidelity quite another. Recall what you're actually objecting to in this thread: the notion that Aurora and Maleficent come face to face, because it didn't happen in Sleeping Beauty. You're overlooking all the other connections that are quite clearly visible in the trailer - the costumes and characterizations, the wall of thorns - to nitpick on this single difference. What's more, it's a difference that's probably necessary for the story, if Aurora is supposed to be an actual character this time around.
Neither of us have seen Maleficent. Maybe it will suck. But if it sucks, it will not be because Maleficent and Aurora do something they didn't do in Sleeping Beauty. And by singlemindedly fixating on that thing as though it were a cardinal sin, all you're really doing is ruining your own potential enjoyment of the film. Criticize the movie for actual faults: bad acting, bad pacing, bad effects, whatever. But don't criticize it for failing to adhere to some nonexistent "facts". One retelling of a story is as valid as any other, as long as it's told well in its own right.
Hmm? Your post referred the 1925 adaptation, which is the silent version that nobody ever watches anymore. You said nothing about the 1939 musical with Judy Garland - the classic. If you're telling me now that you meant to be trashing the 1939 film... well, you're entitled to your opinion, but if this fidelity fixation of yours leads you to reject a movie that has been overwhelmingly well received for generations, perhaps that ought to indicate to you that you're taking it too far and only hurting yourself with it. The changes certainly aren't bothering anybody else.
And you never answered my question: what makes Wicked "honest" and the movie "dishonest"?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So far this is my "ok, but not theater worthy" judgement... ill wait for more stuff or an actual review before i revisit my opinion.
Something with pointy ears, anyway. But those horns are also apparently part her head, which typically represents something a bit more... diabolical. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose. What caught my attention more than her physiology was the fact that Disney seems to be trying pretty hard to set her up as Maybe A Good Guy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This description of the movie appears to put Maleficent in some sort of forest protector role, protecting the "forest kingdom she has grown to love" until she is betrayed by humans, possibly by King Stephan somehow. Although interesting, I also fear that this will turn an iconic Disney villain (arguably the best Disney villain) into a sympathetic character that will ultimately ruin her reputation as an all-time great villain.
There are several examples of Hollywood turning iconic villains into something else entirely; here are a few that come to mind:
- For many fans, the "nooooo" scene in Star Wars: Episode III turned Darth Vader from coolest sci-fi villain ever into a running gag reel. Fans want to remember Vader choking out Imperial officials and generally not caring about anybody or anything other than the Empire itself. Yes, we knew in the original trilogy that he was once a Jedi and was "turned', but Episode III really turned some fans off instead.
- The Shape, or Michael Myers character from the original Halloween movie was once the iconic slasher villain. Other iconic slasher film villains had somewhat sympathetic backstories (camp counselors not caring about a drowning Jason and angry parents burning Freddy alive), but even though we knew Michael's original victims, there was never an explanation other than the Doctor telling us that he was "pure evil" with the "blackest eyes". There was no simple explanation on what made Michael evil - he was just simply evil and that terrified us somewhat. Over the years, from the ridiculous backstories about Michael being involved in a cult to the new Rob Zombie "mask" interpretations, he has been reduced to "just another slasher bad guy" in many fans eyes.
- The Wicked Witch of the West from the Judy Garland Oz film was another iconic villain. We didn't know how or why there were two wicked witches and two good witches, they were just simply wicked and good. We didn't really need to know the reason why, either. Well, in the new Great and Powerful Oz film, we find out that the Wicked Witch of the West really wasn't wicked to begin with, but turned by her sister who was really the original wicked one. This really left a sour taste in the mouths of fans of the Margaret Hamilton's take in the 1939 film.
All that being said, I feel that although learning about backstories are cool and interesting, I'm not sure it needs to be shown in a film. In the Disney 1959 Sleeping Beauty film, you realize there is somewhat of a backstory when the three "good" faeries (Flora, Fauna & Merryweather) tell Maleficent she is unwanted at Princess Aurora's christening. Why did the three faeries and seemingly everyone else at the christening not want Maleficent there? What cruel acts did she do to obtain a reputation of not being wanted at an event that the whole kingdom is celebrating? I think the question for most fans of Maleficent is, "does it matter"?
I think one of the general appeals from this movie was the actual backstory and explanation of Maleficent's motivations from the 1959 Disney film - why did she want to curse the daughter of the king? Because she wasn't invited to the party? Why is she evil in the first place? I think there would be plenty of "older" audiences that love the old Disney film to go to the theater to find out, but it appears that adults may leave the theater with more questions than answers.
spoilers because thats the rule
Pros:
1. I like the fact that they kept some of the original lines from the first film, it gives it that organic overlap while still making it its own movie, and i really appreciate the effort put there.
2. The crow character was brilliant, truly this is one part where i loved the added character and details presented (i think the overall character waas a bit bland but i think the overall effect is rather good, i mean a Crow thats also the dashing rogue? yeah i liked it, plus some of his comic relief moments where really good).
3. I liked that they made the three good fairies look like incompetent idiots.... it kinda fits my perception of pixies overall...
4. Philips is just an idiot prince kid and is not the magical mary sue hero.... i dont know why that makes me feel good but it does.
5. Marsh Wurm/Dragon.... that thing should have been more prominent...
Cons:
1. They gave maleficent a 'relatable' backstory and an 'oh but wait im actually the good one all along' cliche...
2. They made her 'ride of towards the sunset' so to speak which i find to be rather.... well dissapointing.
3. I wanted to see more of the treants... they were 'classically handsome' after all....
4. I hated young maleficent, child acting is always such a hard thing to do right since the kids lack the overall experience and proper training adults have that it makes it awkward and a drag to watch at times.
5. The CGI.... was good at times and bad at others.
6. So wait the farm boy gets the wings and the king gives him the entire kingdom? not only that but none of the other boyards/contenders/pretneders whatever noticed he did this and tried to stop him/swindle him out of his prize to claim the glory? and for that matter how the **** did a peasant farm boy work his way into becoming the personal attendant of the king???? and how come no one tried to assassinate him afterwards? i mean the old king just crowned a god damned peasant as king, i just cant picture the nobles not trying to kill this 'upstart'....
7. They copied the 'true love' moment from Frozen... it felt like disney going "oh people liked this part of frozen because it was a smart and unexpected twist on ingrained preconceptions regarding the princess movies.... lets tack it to Maleficent also!!!"
I would give it a 4-5/10, i dont regret watching it with friends, but i wouldnt have felt bad if we had skipped it and just done something else either.
- Some of the visuals were great, especially in IMAX 3D; especially the scenes where Maleficent uses her wings to fly above the clouds - she almost looks like an angel with the clouds/sunlight in the background. I was really thinking of some Angel magic cards when this was on the screen.
- I thought Jolie was a great choice for the lead role and she really played it well. Loved the baby Aurora scene and the shot where Maleficent looks over her shoulder at the spinning wheel. She looked and acted the part beautifully, even if I disagreed with making Maleficent somewhat of a "good guy" vs. an evil fairy in the Disney movie.
- I know there was some criticism of the casting of whomever played Aurora, but I disagree - I thought she looked and acted the few parts she had nicely. She looked and acted like a young, beautiful, graceful princess from the "gifts" the fairies bestowed upon her, except for one example in my "con" section below.
- One of the few plot points and writing I liked was how Maleficent had her wings stolen from her by Stefan so he could gain power.
Cons:
- There were also some bad visuals; there were certain scenes that were just obviously filmed in front of a blue screen or on a film stage (young Maleficent flying; scene were Prince Phillip first appears, etc). I know you have to film in front of a blue/green screen for certain effects, but you should be so engaged in the movie that you don't notice it yet.
- I actually felt the film was rushed. It seemed that there was no slowing down to explain things; just went right from young Maleficent to 16-yr old Maleficent; from farmboy Stefan right to evil King Stefan; from the 3 fairies liking Maleficent in the Moors to hating her and bowing down in front of the king immediately after, etc. I know this is a children's film, but this one could have used an extra 20-30 min to space things apart a bit more. Very choppy editing and it really felt like this thing went through several rewrites before the Disney execs finally settled on the final product.
- I liked the casting of Jolie and Aurora, but whomever they cast as Stefan was the wrong choice - just horrific acting and just not convincing of someone who would stop at nothing to gain power. Perhaps it was the editing, but an example of the wooden acting was when Stefan went to check on the ironworkers he hired and they were asleep because it was night-time - he doesn't sound or act like a king possessed with the notion that there must be iron built to combat Maleficent.
- Speaking of making iron, I could be wrong but I believe Stefan wants ironworkers early on after Maleficent curses Aurora. So after a long period of time, the most iron they can make is some armor, a room with the iron "thorns" and an iron net? It doesn't seem like they did much after all that time.
- What about when Aurora learns that Maleficent cursed her? She runs away after learning it was true, goes to the castle, meets her father, gets thrown in her room, pricks her finger and is delighted to see Maleficent after she awakens? I know she's graceful and all, but this was a little bit too "soon" to just fall into her "fairy Godmother's" arms again after the awful thing she did.
- Speaking of the kiss, the movie seems to suggest at the end that Prince Phillip will end up with Aurora after he appears at her "crowning" ceremony in the Moors. If his kiss wasn't a "true love's first kiss", why would they end up together?
- Why did Aurora give up on her father so easily? I mean, she comes into the castle for the first time in her life and he rudely greets her and throws her into her room until her 16th birthday is up and then right after she awakens, she turns on him to save Maleficent? I know she goes into another room and sees Maleficent's wings in hanging up, but would she know that it was her father that stolen them from Maleficent? Even if she realized it was him, he's your father and you're ready to give up on him after 1 meeting? What happened to her "grace" that was bestowed upon her?
- What about the queen? There was a scene where it semi-explains that she's on her deathbed I think when Stefan is gazing at Maleficent's wings on the wall, but it doesn't explain anything. Wouldn't Aurora want to know where her mother was, too?
For me, this was strike two and three for Disney's, real-life "retelling" of fairy tales movies from someone else's perspective. Strike one was Snow White and the Huntsman and I think I've had enough after Maleficent. After seeing the first trailer when I took my daughter to see Frozen, I was real excited because I thought it really looked great, and as is the case so many times, the end product of the movie doesn't really live up to the hype (at least the "hype" in my mind that I had).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're right and I apologize.
My point is still the same; we've had a recent string of live-action fairy-tales in recent years - Red Riding Hood starring Amanda Seyfriend, Burton's Alice on Wonderland, Snow White and the Huntsman and now Maleficent. All of them have been a disappointment to me and unless my daughter is clamoring to see the next one coming out in March 2015 - Disney's live action Cinderella - I'll probably be waiting to rent vs. spending the money at the theater.
Now with this movie done im going to jump on MovieBob's joke and say we need a Jafar movie now.
Ultimate Cosmic POWER!!!!!!!
Tiny beany living space