Malificent

[Avilan the Grey]

Anyone but me getting excited about this movie?
I thought I was done with Fairytale reimaginations, but this looks... really really good.

Also, Angelina Jolie with big black crow wings and horns... Yes please. :smallredface::smallbiggrin:

[Math_Mage]

I guess the grimdark fairy tale reboots are making enough money to sustain the genre. At least this is probably a step or two up from Hansel & Gretel, Witch Hunters.

[Legato Endless]

The newest trailer looks like a really cool videogame. How it will be as a film I'm not sure.

Hansel and Gretal is probably the wrong comparison. This looks more like Disney cashing in on the Wicked phenomenon and following up their Oz sequel with another perspective shift.

Especially considering the Internet whining about copying Wicked. Granted, I found the Wicked novel to be obnoxious and a sorry replacement for the source material it riffed off, so Disney following up with their own offering doesn't really bother me.

The effects look quite good, except for the fairies who look really creepy. You could tell a decent perspective shift except...the film looks like it will mine two easy passes. First, some sort of racial intolerance metaphor. Two, instead of having a complex interaction with some ambiguity, it appears one character will assume the mantle of hideous jerk so we can direct our sympathies elsewhere. This doesn't bode well for the plot.

[MLai]

You could tell a decent perspective shift except...the film looks like it will mine two easy passes. First, some sort of racial intolerance metaphor. Two, instead of having a complex interaction with some ambiguity, it appears one character will assume the mantle of hideous jerk so we can direct our sympathies elsewhere. This doesn't bode well for the plot.
The plot has leaked? What's the movie about (aside "it's about Sleeping Beauty story")? Don't worry about spoilering me, b/c for "retold" stories I really don't care about spoilers.

[Legato Endless]

The plot has leaked? What's the movie about (aside "it's about Sleeping Beauty story")? Don't worry about spoilering me, b/c for "retold" stories I really don't care about spoilers.

Well, I'm basing this off the recent trailer. Less leak and more genre savvy. I would welcome being mistaken. Doesn't doom the film certainly, but plots like what I'm predicting tend to be too conservative for their own good. Basically:

Maleficent was once a good, beautiful fairy princess who lived in peace until her kingdom was attacked by humans. She stands up against them and protects her land until a betrayal breaks her heart and turns her into the Mistress of All Evil. She gears up for revenge against the culprit, the invading king's successor Stefan (Sharlto Copely), which culminates in her cursing his newborn daughter Aurora (Elle Fanning). As the princess grows up, though, Maleficent begins to rethink her actions...

I starting typing out a response, then checked the trusty tvtropes page and they came to an identitical conclusion. Copy and pasted.

[SeeDarkly_X]

I spotted this (http://www.buzzsugar.com/Maleficent-Movie-GIFs-34386812) from someone's facebook repost...
(They're all stripped from the trailers I haven't bothered to see.)
It obviously says nothing regarding the plot...
but just those optics of the effects and Jolie's characterization are remarkable.

I'll still probably wait until it goes to DVD to see it...
but I wouldn't turn down a free theater screening if offered.

[afroakuma]

Anyone but me getting excited about this movie?

Emphatically no. With every new trailer it just skews more and more "Oz the Great and Powerful." I don't need another villainess birthed from a broken heart and twisted from goodness into scorn, let alone Disney's most signature villain. All I'm seeing is character derailment and a uselessly trendy reinterpretation that misses out on the chance to be a truly epic film.

[EmeraldRose]

At first, I looked at the trailer and thought "blargh", but then I realized it was from her perspective. I then found myself intrigued...I may need to watch it...when it comes out on TV...

[Jayngfet]

The plot has leaked? What's the movie about (aside "it's about Sleeping Beauty story")? Don't worry about spoilering me, b/c for "retold" stories I really don't care about spoilers.

From what I understand reading around, it goes like this:

-Malefecent is given a tragic sob story background that's supposed to make us feel sorry for her.

-Her icnoic cursing of baby Aurora is changed so that she never tried to kill her. Likewise this means that the heroic faeries never actually get to save her life.

-The kings in question lose all sense of humor and personality from the original film. Phillip, usually everyone's favorite prince, is pushed to the side by virtue of being inconvenient to the picture of the queen of all evil being some lonely victim.

-Whatever leftover bad things are pushed onto an original side character who gets to take most of the blame for the other evil things, thus freeing Malefecent from any responsibility for her actions.

-Conversely, she also never transforms into a dragon and fights Philip. Instead the same original guy steals her thunder and does it himself.

-Malefecent's iconic beastman army is nowhere to be seen. Instead she has an incredibly uninspired group of pseudo-ents and plant monsters that look like they walked out of literally any other "dark retelling" from the last decade or so.

-Her iconic horned cowl is mostly abandoned except in iconic scenes, and she's made to wear this softer green thing that's both less exciting and less memorable.

I'm sorry, but this is one of my favorite animated movies and they basically gut out every single iconic moment and scene and piece of character work in order to make Angalena Jolie look like a frail victim. Even the implications of lore Disney snuck into the first one go mainly unresolved and every single character trades in the charm and personality they had for what little screentime they shared, instead wearing bulky Game of Thrones armor and putting on a scowl in every other scene.

Jolie looks the part, I'll admit, but if literally every single other thing is going to be godawful and she's reading from a crap script and wearing crap costumes, it's not really worth it.

[LordHavelock]

I'll be seeing it if only because I have this admittedly niche fascination with the 'Mistress of Evil' character, and Maleficent is that to the literal and figurative 'T'! Won't speak to how they may very well be re-imagining the fairy/folk/disney tale, but the original source matter being positively primeval lore and legend I think there's a lot of built in malleability for a modern re-imagining (even if it turns out to be a shameless cash in); which is an advantage I'd say it has over certain other high-fantasy tales (Looking at you Peter Jackson).

My thoughts that particular franchise aside, I'm more than willing to keep an open mind about Maleficent for the samples of the soundtrack alone. Plus, Angelina, as others have mentioned, completely looks the part, and seeing her playing something besides a more conventional 'action-girl' will be a welcome change of pace. Altogether, I think it's a recipe that while not exactly oscar worthy, will have to try pretty hard to fail.

I'm wondering though, am I alone, even in this particular venue in my fascination with women in positions of power and a particularly malevolent bent? Would it be weird for me to say that I think Maleficent is downright smoking hot without having to be played by the likes of Angelina? Before any skeptics out there begin naysaying, I have some other material to back up my claims:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHEw2n9LwE

Chills. Everytime. Also some other feelings which are . . . personal.

[MLai]

From what I understand reading around, it goes like this...
Wow.
You might be right on this, but since I might be seeing this movie, for my own sake I sure hope you're wrong.
But yes, it's highly likely Disney will be trying to cash in on the Wicked trend + "dark retelling" trend.
I don't mind her going the path of Wicked, because that's what I expected would happen. But the revelation that she'll be conveniently absent in all of her iconic evil moments (dragon, etc) is disappointing. In that, I think Wicked at least did it better. The play (never read the book) was never about the central events of the book, so the WWoW was more malleable without being robbed of badassery.

I'm wondering though, am I alone, even in this particular venue in my fascination with women in positions of power and a particularly malevolent bent? Would it be weird for me to say that I think Maleficent is downright smoking hot without having to be played by the likes of Angelina?
(1) Humanity's long fascination with this character archetype would seem to indicate that you're not alone. It's archaeologically proven to be Older Than Dirt, I think.
(2) Maleficent has always been recognized as being one of the hottest Disney characters around, when you poll adult males. This is before Jolie.

[Avilan the Grey]

Emphatically no. With every new trailer it just skews more and more "Oz the Great and Powerful." I don't need another villainess birthed from a broken heart and twisted from goodness into scorn, let alone Disney's most signature villain. All I'm seeing is character derailment and a uselessly trendy reinterpretation that misses out on the chance to be a truly epic film.

A few things:

1. I have never understood the "Evulz as a good motivation" thing. If the villain is only evil for the sake of Evil, then she is not enough of a person to care about. She's just... an obstacle to be removed. Not a person.

2. Character derailment? Seriously? This is not the mirror version of the original film. This is it's own adaption, although it seems to be closer to the "original" film than the actual story (not that there isn't about 100 different versions of it).

3. I have heard a lot of this ("Disney's most signature villain") from (American) people. I never cared about the movie, but I admit I feel the same about Snow White. I guess they were way before my time, and when I grew up in Sweden you just couldn't watch them. So I watched them for the first time in my mid 20ies and... Let's just say a villain doesn't make the same impact at 25 as at 11. Plus I never cared for the original tales anyway. My personal favorite Disney villains are Hades, Ursula and Scar in that order.

[jidasfire]

A few things:

1. I have never understood the "Evulz as a good motivation" thing. If the villain is only evil for the sake of Evil, then she is not enough of a person to care about. She's just... an obstacle to be removed. Not a person.



I disagree slightly. In a long-form narrative with gobs and gobs of room for development, it is understandable to give everyone a clear-cut motivation with nuance and depth and all that jazz. But in Sleeping Beauty, no one's getting that kind of time for background, and frankly it would do them a disservice. It's a film, and far more important is how they act and what they do. Maleficent is one of the great villains of Disney lore, and she does it with style. She's cool and she's scary and she doesn't need to be a wounded puppy who's only evil because big mean humans hurt her feelings. The very idea robs the character of everything that makes her interesting. In another example, I don't want to see Cruella DeVille have a tragic backstory where her father was eaten by dalmatians or something. In the real world, if that's a thing we care about when it comes to fiction, some people are just jerks. And if we want to examine it from a mythological perspective, some fairies were just really really nasty and inhuman without any cause.

[Avilan the Grey]

I disagree slightly. In a long-form narrative with gobs and gobs of room for development, it is understandable to give everyone a clear-cut motivation with nuance and depth and all that jazz. But in Sleeping Beauty, no one's getting that kind of time for background,

On the other hand, this isn't Sleeping Beauty.

[Jayngfet]

3. I have heard a lot of this ("Disney's most signature villain") from (American) people. I never cared about the movie, but I admit I feel the same about Snow White. I guess they were way before my time, and when I grew up in Sweden you just couldn't watch them. So I watched them for the first time in my mid 20ies and... Let's just say a villain doesn't make the same impact at 25 as at 11. Plus I never cared for the original tales anyway. My personal favorite Disney villains are Hades, Ursula and Scar in that order.

The thing about Malefecent as a villain is that in a large part she's the originator for what made most of Hades and Ursula work. She's a character who oozes power and malice and grace through inhuman evil. She's not a person who happens to be bad, she's an inhuman monster ruling over inhuman monsters, self proclaimed queen of all evil. She may not have nuance, but she was devised to be the antagonist of a movie that's barely more than an hour long that needs to read well in the mind of small children. She's a character that does everything she sets out to do and more. From the moment you see her first Louisette, you know this person isn't just the bad guy, but the baddest guy, in a way no villain before ever could be and in a way most since have tried to mimic with varying degrees of success.

In the medium of animation, she is essentially the villain. She wasn't the first to try attacking a princess, she wasn't the first to turn into a dragon, and she wasn't the first to lead an army of monsters, but when she did it, it seared the actions into the brains of every kid watching. Hence why attempting to essentially undo it all and make her into a crying woobie doesn't exactly work so well.

[Manly Man]

I'll probably watch it, but that's because the soundtrack is awesome, and also because I like to put on yuri goggles and look for subtext between Maleficent and Aurora, so...

Yeah. *shrug*

That, and it'll be a chance for me to get together with some friends who I haven't seen in a forever and a half.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hence why attempting to essentially undo it all and make her into a crying woobie doesn't exactly work so well.

Thing is, they never stated that. Ever.

In fact, they have gone to great lengths to state that the goal is for the audience to still see her as Evil at the end of the movie, and to at no point invoke the "Designated Villain" or "Draco In Leather Pants" tropes (my words, of course, but that is what both the writer and Angelina has stated, in essence).
...Which makes it the more interesting for me. If they can pull it off, it will be great.

My personal hopes is that instead of having her a "human with horns and an sob backstory" they manage to give her a true Blue And Orange Morality (with a backstory). Because that is what Fey and Fairies should be. They are not human, and their motives and reasonings are their own.

[MLai]

My personal hopes is that instead of having her a "human with horns and an sob backstory" they manage to give her a true Blue And Orange Morality (with a backstory). Because that is what Fey and Fairies should be. They are not human, and their motives and reasonings are their own.
(1) She's not "Disney's most signature villain"; she is ONE of them. However, it can be said that she is the most awe-inspiringly evil villain of the classic animated features, i.e. an evil of mythic proportions.
None of your other stated examples (Hades, Ursula, and Scar) achieve this effect, though that is not due to lack of quality. It's merely that those other villains were going for different angles; the awe we could accord them are diluted by varying degrees of (black) comedy and humanization. Even if the humanization only serves to illustrate their scheming, connivery, and/or magnificent dastardliness.

(2) I wouldn't even go so far as to hope for B&O Morality. I think what most want is simply not-another-Wicked. That's it. Want to tell a Maleficent story? Great! But keep her...
[i] Evil.
[ii] Not because of sob backstory.
[iii] The most badass one in the story.

But if Jayngfet's grapevine is correct, then it seems all 3 of the above are violated.
Honestly there are plenty of ways to write a sympathetic villain who isn't sympathetic merely because he/she had a terrible childhood.

[Legato Endless]

This is all ignoring one other significant factor to the animated characters appeal. No matter how well the film or Jolie does, her delivery will be found lacking comparatively. Beyond design and archetype execution, no Disney antagonist is as iconically voice acted. Eleanor Audley was distinct, and could be deftly subtle or swallow the scenery. Even Jeremy Irons is completely out hammed by her. She might not be the most complex or nuanced animated antagonist, but good luck finding one as vocally memorable in the public consciousness.

[Avilan the Grey]

This is all ignoring one other significant factor to the animated characters appeal. No matter how well the film or Jolie does, her delivery will be found lacking comparatively. Beyond design and archetype execution, no Disney antagonist is as iconically voice acted. Eleanor Audley was distinct, and could be deftly subtle or swallow the scenery. Even Jeremy Irons is completely out hammed by her. She might not be the most complex or nuanced animated antagonist, but good luck finding one as vocally memorable in the public consciousness.

And that's another thing... Before the Little Mermaid you could not get non-dubbed animated full length movies in Sweden. Period. It was sort of revolutionary that you could pick either a dubbed or the un-dubbed with subtitles then. (We usually never dub movies, except for children's movies). I have never heard the original voice.

But again, both the writer AND Angelina has over and over stated that the goal is NOT to feel sympathy for the devil, only flesh her out and let her tell her side of the story.

[MLai]

But again, both the writer AND Angelina has over and over stated that the goal is NOT to feel sympathy for the devil, only flesh her out and let her tell her side of the story.
What you're saying is completely opposite of what Jayngfet is saying regarding what the movie will be like. I think I can say, we all hope you're the one who is right.

But think on this. The director (directorial debut) had a hand in Avatar (Cameron), Alice In Wonderland (Burton), and Oz The Great & Powerful. The writer wrote Alice In Wonderland. While I like the 1st and 3rd movies just fine, in this context it really doesn't bode well for Maleficent. It's going to depend on whether this director and this writer has good range, or whether they're hired by Disney specifically to jump on the cash-cow trend of "ostracized feminist hero" that Disney is seeing.

[Scowling Dragon]

Im just bluegh about this story. How is it gonna work?

If its a story from the perspective of the antagonist, about Maleficent being a nasty monster and ****ing **** up that would be rather fresh, ESPECIALLY for a Disney film. But Im doubtful that its gonna be dat way.

But if its a sob story about "How the world made me this way" and it will be a """""""Original"""""""" spin on the story where "The villain was the good guy all along" and the villain was "A poor oppressed victim of socieat-ea-h".

This often leaves a bleh taste in the mouth because of how wishy washy it is.

Its like when a RPG player wants to play the necromancer, but thens' like "But mines a GOOD necromancer and all her power comes from rainbows and sunflower seeds" where the idea is you'r manipulating energy that by it very nature corrupts and twists the souls of the living.

Sometimes what makes a bad guy most interesting is pure evil. Darth Vader pre Anikin anybody?

[Mystic Muse]

Its like when a RPG player wants to play the necromancer, but thens' like "But mines a GOOD necromancer and all her power comes from rainbows and sunflower seeds" where the idea is you'r manipulating energy that by it very nature corrupts and twists the souls of the living.


That's assuming that's how it works in the setting. There are in fact a fair number of settings where necromancy isn't inherently evil.

[Legato Endless]

I think SD is more bemoaning the current trend of reinterpreting certain archetypical ideas in a more morally upright sense despite being typically associated with bleak evil. In which case he doesn't care about setting justifications. Which is complicated by the fact that...I can't really say, per board rules.

Not going to lie, the director history bodes ill. None of those films had anything resembling subtlty or nuance, and pretty cartoonish in their depictions of heroes and villains.

[Mystic Muse]

Not going to lie, the director history bodes ill. None of those films had anything resembling subtlty or nuance, and pretty cartoonish in their depictions of heroes and villains.


I think what more bodes ill is that he has not one directing credit to his name, he's been a Special effects person for 94 different things.

[Scowling Dragon]

I think SD is more bemoaning the current trend of reinterpreting certain archetypical ideas in a more morally upright sense despite being typically associated with bleak evil.

Oh pretty much. Thing is the thing that attracts you to the necromancer in the first place IS the "Playing with powers of darkness thing". Often times in settings where the Necromancer is just an average joe I find people oft pick it last.

Point is the thing that made Maleficent interesting in the first place was her cool evil style. No regrets. Making her just another hero in a half shell (Evil power) would kill her.

[Legato Endless]

Another issue with fleshing her out, is well, she's a fairy. Part of her appeal, along with the voice, the style and the gravitas, was her character. She did have a motive people. She's petty. Gloriously so. Why is Aurora cursed? YOU DIDN'T INVITE ME to the christening! Don't care for her fellow fay at times? Send frost to KILL THEIR FLOWERS! I want an alien creature. Obsessed with attacking any perceived slights. The racial metaphor…blah. It's been done to death. Fantasy needs to let this go for a few decades.

[MLai]

Oh pretty much. Thing is the thing that attracts you to the necromancer in the first place IS the "Playing with powers of darkness thing". Often times in settings where the Necromancer is just an average joe I find people oft pick it last.
Tell me about it. It's why I loved the Warcraft mythos until they turned orcs into noble savages. I hear they're doing the same thing with Zergs or something? I won't touch it.
Games Workshop Orkz and Nids for me, nowadays. OrkzOrkzOrkzOrkz!

Point is the thing that made Maleficent interesting in the first place was her cool evil style. No regrets. Making her just another hero in a half shell (Evil power) would kill her.
You totally made me sing that last sentence.

The racial metaphor…blah. It's been done to death. Fantasy needs to let this go for a few decades.
Wait you saw a racial metaphor too? Oh god please no.
I didn't see it. Are you guessing?

[Jayngfet]

Wait you saw a racial metaphor too? Oh god please no.
I didn't see it. Are you guessing?

I don't know anything about that, but it's entirely possible. Malefecent apparently has these graceful angel wings to emphasize speshulness instead of normal bug wings, and got them cut off for some reason.


...this being entirely irrelevant, of course, since the original movie establishes that Fairies can make their wings disappear and grow back at will, and that Malefecent's final form(which is given to the generic Tom Hiddleston impersonator for no reason) had wings anyway.

When I was in the theater today, it was kind of amazing to see how unexcited the audience was for this movie compared to basically everything else. Even transformers got a token "cool", even if it was kinda noncommittal. Guardians of the Galaxy has a whole bunch of visible hype. Malefecent though? Well half the audience was already kinda sick to death of the idea, since basically every dark retelling of a fairy story tends to go in exactly the same way, and Malefecent's trailer visibly shows it'll be no different.



One last complaint, and this one I know is really petty, but the girl they have now for Aurora/Rose doesn't really sell me as being the same character. I can't really buy her as either being a girl who's weird and lives in a shack out in the woods, or as the literal metahuman who's appearance is so untarnished and perfect despite context that characters comment on it as being slightly disturbing. She's just this random girl who sounds like an actress under an unreasonable amount of pressure to do something impossible and make this entertaining.

[MLai]

Aurora is supposed to have a big role in the movie?
I had figured she'd just be a 5-second prop, same way Dorothy was in Wicked. Which was hilarious for some reason, when I saw it act out on stage.
I guess the hilarity (to me) was just from the unceremonious way Alfalfa manhandles a little girl.

[Jayngfet]

Aurora is supposed to have a big role in the movie?
I had figured she'd just be a 5-second prop, same way Dorothy was in Wicked. Which was hilarious for some reason, when I saw it act out on stage.
I guess the hilarity (to me) was just from the unceremonious way Alfalfa manhandles a little girl.

She has at least two scenes, going by the trailers. Though she's probably the least of the problems.

Especially how two kingdoms with decades of peace and prosperity and good diplomatic relations, provided with obvious magic assistance can apparently have a gigantic army just standing around ...because?

I mean really, who are these guys supposed to fight? Malefecent is literally the only antagonist they have or seem to have ever had.

[MLai]

I mean really, who are these guys supposed to fight? Malefecent is literally the only antagonist they have or seem to have ever had.
If Snow White & The Huntsman can whip up a Braveheart battle, there's no reason Malificent can't.
Beastmen do sound more fun than tree-men riding tree-ponies to battle, though.

[Scowling Dragon]

If Snow White & The Huntsman can whip up a Braveheart battle, there's no reason Malificent can't.

Except it would be a repetitive waste of time.

[Avilan the Grey]

She has at least two scenes, going by the trailers. Though she's probably the least of the problems.

Especially how two kingdoms with decades of peace and prosperity and good diplomatic relations, provided with obvious magic assistance can apparently have a gigantic army just standing around ...because?

I mean really, who are these guys supposed to fight? Malefecent is literally the only antagonist they have or seem to have ever had.

Noblemen + Quasi-Medieval setting = Army.

Seriously. Noblemen = Army, period.


Edit: Also... Angel wings? No. Crow Wings yes. Totally different symbolism.
If I understand the backstory right it was the king, whatshisname, that cut them off her when he captured her sometime before the start of the movie. Of course he only retaliated for something else, AFAIR, he didn't do it unprovoked.

[Legato Endless]

@Mlai: Everything is speculative on my part from the first two trailers. But the forest army rousing scene has a definite feel to it. It might not be a huge theme, but the oppression /hostility of unseelie or dark or whatever the uncute Fay are called is likely. Also expect the previous film's fairy protagonists to be more upper class twit. Then again maybe its just her army out for her personal grudge.

In fairness to Aurora, if its a perspective flip her inclusion makes far more sense. Dorothy has nothing to do with the wicked witch except stealing her sisters shoes and killing her at the end of the day. Aurora is the central focus of Malificent's efforts for two decades. She would need to feature in some way even if it were artfully done as an offscreen affair. Now, what we are shown looks like the typical tame interaction. The film is darker but more watered down.

Aurora: I know she's scary but I feel her heart. She doesn't deserve all this!
Mal: Well she seems sweet, possibly wooden but sweet. Maybe her punishing her when her father/grandpa was a jerk is a bad idea. But, revenge! But...

The plant dragon looks cool. Don't know why anyone would be excited for transformers in the theater. They are better on DVD. Where you can fast forward to the fight scenes. Except the first film, where even those were pretty crappily crafted.

[Jayngfet]

If Snow White & The Huntsman can whip up a Braveheart battle, there's no reason Malificent can't.
Beastmen do sound more fun than tree-men riding tree-ponies to battle, though.

There's the obvious issue that Snow White is reasonably neutral politically, while Sleeping Beauty is explicitly peaceful. Not to mention that one is based on the original story while this one is explicitly just a darkified version of the Disney movie, with the soundtrack framed around Lana Del Rey phoning in a "disturbing' version of the main song and them trying to soften up the iconic lines to be less about death than before.

I'm also going to say the dragon looks really, really lazy, especially since the audience has literally seen half a dozen dragons like it in the last few years. I can stand it being another Wyvern, though I'm less tolerant than I was for Smaug given context. But they changed the iconic green magical flame to something much more boring. They robbed the dragon of literally everything about it that made it look great.

[Avilan the Grey]

There's the obvious issue that Snow White is reasonably neutral politically, while Sleeping Beauty is explicitly peaceful. Not to mention that one is based on the original story while this one is explicitly just a darkified version of the Disney movie, with the soundtrack framed around Lana Del Rey phoning in a "disturbing' version of the main song and them trying to soften up the iconic lines to be less about death than before.


I still don't get all this displeasure and stuff.
"phoning in"? That version is AWESOME.

Sleeping Beauty is "explicitly peaceful" according to whom, exactly?

[Scowling Dragon]

Guys in terms of "Is this awesome" we are running into subjective territory. BUT, in terms of "Is this overplayed" I would say yes with a cherry on top.

And I have to give it to Avilan. Its not explicitly stated that there is peace. BUT I 100% know the reason there IS an army is to make Maleficent more sympathetic obviously. The trailer does show everything overall to be shallow and stupid.

[Avilan the Grey]

Guys in terms of "Is this awesome" we are running into subjective territory. BUT, in terms of "Is this overplayed" I would say yes with a cherry on top.

And I have to give it to Avilan. Its not explicitly stated that there is peace. BUT I 100% know the reason there IS an army is to make Maleficent more sympathetic obviously. The trailer does show everything overall to be shallow and stupid.

Musical taste is per definition subjective. Duh. :smallbiggrin:

And again, "obviously"? I don't get that vibe at all.
As for shallow and stupid... It's no more shallow or stupid than any other hollywood blockbuster movie the last 10000 years. And that includes every. single. Disney movie. ever. made.

[MLai]

I still don't get all this displeasure and stuff?
The fact(?) that the not-Malificent-dragon is a wyvern and doesn't shoot green flames isn't enough of an indicator for you, given all the other factors framing this movie in an ominous context?

Jayngfet sure knows just how to ring the death knell. A wyvern? Not-green flames? I need no more convincing.

[Dienekes]

The fact(?) that the not-Malificent-dragon is a wyvern and doesn't shoot green flames isn't enough of an indicator for you, given all the other factors framing this movie in an ominous context?

Jayngfet sure knows just how to ring the death knell. A wyvern? Not-green flames? I need no more convincing.

Alright, I'm gonna say. I saw the trailer, and was thoroughly unimpressed. It looked like Wicked, but it's been years since that concept of making good evil and evil good has been original and attention grabbing. Maybe if they took a more complex route we could be getting somewhere but as it is, it doesn't look all that interesting. So far it looks like it's just giving the villain a sob story, saying the humans are jerks, and playing out as though that excuses Malificent of guilt so long as we have a "look, she really is nice underneath it all" moment. Pretty dull.

But this? This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. The flames are the wrong color? Really? That's what's wrong with the movie? The color of a freaking fire? That's ridiculous.

When making a movie, it's the directors prerogative to make the movie the vision he wants it to be. He is under no obligation to keep the design as it was in the cartoon. If he thinks red flames look cool, then red flames are fine. That's such a minor detail to pick on. I don't see how it could possibly make a difference in the movie. If the movie is going to suck, it will suck regardless of the color of the fire. If it, despite the pretty flat trailer, is awesome then it will be awesome if the fire's green, or blue, or red, or yellow. So long as the flame fits the context and doesn't look glaringly fake.

[Avilan the Grey]

The fact(?) that the not-Malificent-dragon is a wyvern and doesn't shoot green flames isn't enough of an indicator for you, given all the other factors framing this movie in an ominous context?

Jayngfet sure knows just how to ring the death knell. A wyvern? Not-green flames? I need no more convincing.

Yeah I know. And there were no Elves at Helm's Deep.

Seriously though...
I just don't get why the vibe is "Disney has no right making changes to their own story"!!!
This is not the Horribad adaptation of the Hobbit, or The Cat In The Hat. This is the original property owner playing around with their own stuff.

I bet some of you would tell BMW they are betraying everything by finally making a front-wheel drive model, as well...

[MLai]

But this? This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. The flames are the wrong color? Really? That's what's wrong with the movie? The color of a freaking fire? That's ridiculous..
Did you miss the part where I said "given all the other factors that frame this movie in an ominous context"? But I'll break it down for you.

(1) They explicitly want to ride this movie on the coat-tails of the Disney animation. No argument there, and that in itself isn't bad.

(2) But, they're rewriting the entire script and characters. So that it only superficially looks like the Disney animation, but when you actually sit down to watch the stupid thing, it's some vomit the director thinks is cool because it's "his vision". That's our worst fear. Maybe you liked that aspect of Hobbit 1 and 2? I didn't.

(3) The non-Malificent 2-legged ungreen-flames dragon just gives exhibitional evidence to the above fear. They don't give a F about the climactic moment of Disney Sleeping Beauty, despite aping the movie for the bucks. No, it's "the director's vision." Newsflash, we don't have to watch this movie to already know that vision is not why we loved the original.

[Dienekes]

Did you miss the part where I said "given all the other factors that frame this movie in an ominous context"? But I'll break it down for you.

(1) They explicitly want to ride this movie on the coat-tails of the Disney animation. No argument there, and that in itself isn't bad.

(2) But, they're rewriting the entire script and characters. So that it only superficially looks like the Disney animation, but when you actually sit down to watch the stupid thing, it's some vomit the director thinks is cool because it's "his vision". That's our worst fear. Maybe you liked that aspect of Hobbit 1 and 2? I didn't.

(3) The non-Malificent 2-legged ungreen-flames dragon just gives exhibitional evidence to the above fear. They don't give a F about the climactic moment of Disney Sleeping Beauty, despite aping the movie for the bucks. No, it's "the director's vision." Newsflash, we don't have to watch this movie to already know that vision is not why we loved the original.

Of course it's not going to be what you loved about the original. The original was about a one dimensional spiteful evil queen witch taking disproportionate retribution and attempting to murder a child in a ridiculous and overcomplicated way, with singing (it was great). This movie is changing about every aspect of that to tell a different story. That's ok. Taking older stories and retelling them to fit the modern audience sensibilities or simply inverting everything about the story is a time honored tradition. Some great stories came from it, some terrible stories came from it. The important thing is whether or not the story they end up telling stands on its own legs, and whether its action and cinematography captivates me. The Hobbit, had some great moments (Smaug looked and felt pretty amazing, I thought they nailed Thranduil), and some terrible moments (the barrel riding ridiculousness and that godawful elf/dwarf romance nonsense). But that's pretty irrelevant to how this movie is going to go.

[Talakeal]

Damn it Hollywood, stop cutting the legs off all the dragons!

[Jayngfet]

I still don't get all this displeasure and stuff.
"phoning in"? That version is AWESOME.

It really isn't. It's basically just a monotone with the original version slowed down a bit. I don't really get any sense of passion for it or from it. Given how varied and great the original was and the sense of liveliness pouring from it every second, that's kind of a bad thing.



Sleeping Beauty is "explicitly peaceful" according to whom, exactly?


Well the most obvious thing would be that of every political entity that isn't Malefecent, everyone has fantastic political relations and royal marriges are being arranged and the arrangement can hold for a decade and a half. For that to happen you need some incredibly tight connections and friendships. Not to mention that both kings feel totally comfortable diverting insane amount of resources to this, which they probably wouldn't manage or care about if there was some third entity doing a bunch of saber rattling. This is also presumably why at Aurora's birth, basically every single Knight feels comfortable with pulling away from their homes to watch the ceremonies, instead of having battles to fight in.

Or that Phillip feels at ease riding through a foreign country alone and with no real weapons to speak of, with his only worry explicitly being that some crazy fae like Malefecent showing up to screw with him(this one line invalidating the entire premise of Malefecent's motives in this movie). This is probably also why Aurora feels comfortable trapesing about the woods with no shoes on. If there was a huge bandit problem the situation would be very, very different. Likewise, if they were near a hot border like say, England/Scotland, they'd be much more guarded out of fear some invading force would kill them.

There is no war going on, and there obviously hasn't been one for some time, barring perhaps border skirmishes or something minor enough a few mercenaries can handle it. Going by art direction and costuming those knights are still the best military unit available overall, given Pike Squares wouldn't have been invented yet and cavalry would dominate.

[Avilan the Grey]

It really isn't. It's basically just a monotone with the original version slowed down a bit. I don't really get any sense of passion for it or from it. Given how varied and great the original was and the sense of liveliness pouring from it every second, that's kind of a bad thing.

Taste is taste. But... why do you have to feel "passion" from it? Obviously that is an arbitrary requirement you, personally demand from all music.

As for the rest... "Explicitly peaceful" obviously hold something different to you than to me. To me the expression conjure some hidden Utopia or Shangri-la, an hidden Elf Village or forbidden Kingdom. This is not it. A society that is about on the same level as our own violence-wise is not "peaceful".

And again, the answer about the Army asked above... If there are Knights, there by default an army. That is what a Knight IS; a professional soldier. If there were no need for an army, there would be no nobles in the kingdom. Period.

[Legato Endless]

Alright, I'm gonna say. I saw the trailer, and was thoroughly unimpressed. It looked like Wicked, but it's been years since that concept of making good evil and evil good has been original and attention grabbing.

I don't really understand the love for Wicked. It's an entertaining enough musical, but thematically the whole thing is rather juvenile as morality examinations go.


Maybe if they took a more complex route we could be getting somewhere but as it is, it doesn't look all that interesting. So far it looks like it's just giving the villain a sob story, saying the humans are jerks, and playing out as though that excuses Malificent of guilt so long as we have a "look, she really is nice underneath it all" moment. Pretty dull.

Yeah, that's a good summary. Changing things isn't bad on it's own, but the story just looks kind of trite.


But this? This is one of the silliest arguments I've ever seen. The flames are the wrong color? Really? That's what's wrong with the movie? The color of a freaking fire? That's ridiculous.

When making a movie, it's the directors prerogative to make the movie the vision he wants it to be. He is under no obligation to keep the design as it was in the cartoon. If he thinks red flames look cool, then red flames are fine. That's such a minor detail to pick on. I don't see how it could possibly make a difference in the movie. If the movie is going to suck, it will suck regardless of the color of the fire. If it, despite the pretty flat trailer, is awesome then it will be awesome if the fire's green, or blue, or red, or yellow. So long as the flame fits the context and doesn't look glaringly fake.

The film won't sink or swim based on this no. I'm not entirely certain directorial vision alone justifies it though. A director is free to have his vision, but it's annoying when the vision sucks. The dragon design is too generic. I wouldn't blink if it showed up in a Dragon Age cut scene (save the lack of forearms). That's the real crime. Mal's draconic aspect had a unique look. The purple and green design was memorable for that reason. Trading away something instantly recognizable for the same dullard of design we've seen everywhere else in the last 20 years of fantasy is a mistake. If your going to change it, change it to something that isn't a total retread.


Damn it Hollywood, stop cutting the legs off all the dragons!

Ah Talakeal, your continuing presence in the anti-wyvern society is appreciated.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Ah Talakeal, your continuing presence in the anti-wyvern society is appreciated.

Wyverns are cool. They just shouldn't replace every dragon, especially not in adaptations (A Song of Ice and Fire had wyverns so Game of Thrones having them is fine, Smaug being a Wyvern is dumb).


That is what a Knight IS; a professional soldier. If there were no need for an army, there would be no nobles in the kingdom. Period.

Some knights are professional soldiers. Landed nobles who fight out of obligation and have to pay for all their own stuff aren't really professional soldiers.

[Legato Endless]

Wyverns are cool. They just shouldn't replace every dragon, especially not in adaptations (A Song of Ice and Fire had wyverns so Game of Thrones having them is fine, Smaug being a Wyvern is dumb).

Oh I agree, it's the context that's annoying.

[SiuiS]

I personally don't like Angelina Jolie, so that's not a selling point for me.


I guess the grimdark fairy tale reboots are making enough money to sustain the genre. At least this is probably a step or two up from Hansel & Gretel, Witch Hunters.

Or locally, if there was one fairy tale that should have been from dark, it would be Maleficent's tale.


Well, I'm basing this off the recent trailer. Less leak and more genre savvy. I would welcome being mistaken. Doesn't doom the film certainly, but plots like what I'm predicting tend to be too conservative for their own good. Basically:

Maleficent was once a good, beautiful fairy princess who lived in peace until her kingdom was attacked by humans. She stands up against them and protects her land until a betrayal breaks her heart and turns her into the Mistress of All Evil. She gears up for revenge against the culprit, the invading king's successor Stefan (Sharlto Copely), which culminates in her cursing his newborn daughter Aurora (Elle Fanning). As the princess grows up, though, Maleficent begins to rethink her actions...

I starting typing out a response, then checked the trusty tvtropes page and they came to an identitical conclusion. Copy and pasted.

Ugh. Pass.
I'm tired of fairies being oz witches, with Good ones and Bad ones, the end. That's not how fairies work.

[Dienekes]

If you're gonna bring historical context into this, at least do it right.


Well the most obvious thing would be that of every political entity that isn't Malefecent, everyone has fantastic political relations and royal marriges are being arranged and the arrangement can hold for a decade and a half. For that to happen you need some incredibly tight connections and friendships.

Alright, no you don't. You need one friendly kingdom whose goals of tying the houses are the same as yours. Historically marriage arrangements could last from the moment the younger of the pair was born until they were of marrying age. Some even held up after the two fathers went to war against each other (though admittedly the example I'm thinking of the agreement was broken, and then once the war was over they agreed on the marriage again).


Not to mention that both kings feel totally comfortable diverting insane amount of resources to this, which they probably wouldn't manage or care about if there was some third entity doing a bunch of saber rattling.

Royal weddings, especially in the later medieval period were HUGE events. Insane resources are par for the course. They also at times happened in the middle of wars, or just coming off wars. Henry 3 nearly bankrupted his kingdom setting up his sister's wedding right before going off to a war.


This is also presumably why at Aurora's birth, basically every single Knight feels comfortable with pulling away from their homes to watch the ceremonies, instead of having battles to fight in.

That just means they weren't currently at war. There could have been a war a year ago, for all the good this evidence actually gives.


Or that Phillip feels at ease riding through a foreign country alone and with no real weapons to speak of, with his only worry explicitly being that some crazy fae like Malefecent showing up to screw with him(this one line invalidating the entire premise of Malefecent's motives in this movie). This is probably also why Aurora feels comfortable trapesing about the woods with no shoes on. If there was a huge bandit problem the situation would be very, very different. Likewise, if they were near a hot border like say, England/Scotland, they'd be much more guarded out of fear some invading force would kill them.

The two movies are not sharing the same storyline, so if one line invalidates the premise of the other, well that doesn't actually matter. They're not telling the same story. One simply inspired the other. Banditry was actually a very large problem throughout the middle ages. However, the common peasants were probably decently shielded from them. Who would attack them? Off in the woods with a little hut? There's nothing of value there. The dangerous bandits struck outside royal forests near large town centers.

Admittedly, the prince would not be running around without a guard. But that's true for every situation. The prince should never be going about without his entourage. There were far too many things that needed to be done that he should not being doing himself. Hell in some parts of Europe they even had servants to wipe his arse for him. He'd have his servants, his hunting buddies, and probably a bodyguard or two with him from morning to night. Unless he gave them the slip somehow.


There is no war going on, and there obviously hasn't been one for some time, barring perhaps border skirmishes or something minor enough a few mercenaries can handle it. Going by art direction and costuming those knights are still the best military unit available overall, given Pike Squares wouldn't have been invented yet and cavalry would dominate.

The knight's are wearing (what looks roughly like) 16th century plate (with strangely 14th century through 16th century helmets on). Pike squares most definitely have been around, and so should early guns for that matter. You won't find them in the movie, because and this is the part that really casts your entire argument in doubt, Disney didn't give a single seconds thought for historical accuracy. I don't know why this bit about weaponry and superiority of cavalry shock warfare is relevant to your point though.


I don't really understand the love for Wicked. It's an entertaining enough musical, but thematically the whole thing is rather juvenile as morality examinations go.

It took a story I knew and presented it in a context that was at least interesting. I agree the moral examination was not exactly amazing, but it at least kept my attention. It, however, was of course helped by the fact that it was fun and enjoyable. Without the wit of the musical I don't think anyone would remember the play.



The film won't sink or swim based on this no. I'm not entirely certain directorial vision alone justifies it though. A director is free to have his vision, but it's annoying when the vision sucks. The dragon design is too generic. I wouldn't blink if it showed up in a Dragon Age cut scene (save the lack of forearms). That's the real crime. Mal's draconic aspect had a unique look. The purple and green design was memorable for that reason. Trading away something instantly recognizable for the same dullard of design we've seen everywhere else in the last 20 years of fantasy is a mistake. If your going to change it, change it to something that isn't a total retread.

Hmm, fair enough I guess. But I really can't see getting bent out of shape over a little redesign. Now, when I saw the trailer I didn't exactly focus and analyze on it all (or even notice it only had 2 legs for that matter). But it didn't look that bad to me. Though for what it's worth, as far as dragons go 4 legs > 2 legs. But, I just don't see it as a big deal

[Jayngfet]

I'm gonna spoiler the bulk of the argument and leave the most relevant point out, simply because the last bit is the biggest issue and needs focus.


If you're gonna bring historical context into this, at least do it right.



Alright, no you don't. You need one friendly kingdom whose goals of tying the houses are the same as yours. Historically marriage arrangements could last from the moment the younger of the pair was born until they were of marrying age. Some even held up after the two fathers went to war against each other (though admittedly the example I'm thinking of the agreement was broken, and then once the war was over they agreed on the marriage again).


The example you're thinking of is admittedly broken. But generally speaking, a contract this big is indicative of a rather large degree of co-operation.



Royal weddings, especially in the later medieval period were HUGE events. Insane resources are par for the course. They also at times happened in the middle of wars, or just coming off wars. Henry 3 nearly bankrupted his kingdom setting up his sister's wedding right before going off to a war.

...but that wasn't the wedding. It was a ceremony to announce a wedding that'd happen in fifteen years time.


That just means they weren't currently at war. There could have been a war a year ago, for all the good this evidence actually gives.

Not currently at war, no wars worth mentioning for the next fifteen years either too. There could have been some kind of unfathomably huge war going on with some country that was never mentioned once, but I'm disinclined to believe it given such a thing never came up once in conversation.


The two movies are not sharing the same storyline, so if one line invalidates the premise of the other, well that doesn't actually matter. They're not telling the same story. One simply inspired the other. Banditry was actually a very large problem throughout the middle ages. However, the common peasants were probably decently shielded from them. Who would attack them? Off in the woods with a little hut? There's nothing of value there. The dangerous bandits struck outside royal forests near large town centers.

...One is clearly heavily based on the other. The costuming, set pieces, and even almost exact lines are taken wholesale. You can't claim them as being totally separate things when they obviously aren't.

However, did you also seriously miss the other part of that statement? I mean a bunch of old ladies in the woods is one thing, but we're talking about a prince who feels safe enough in foreign territory to do so with no armor or weapons.



Admittedly, the prince would not be running around without a guard. But that's true for every situation. The prince should never be going about without his entourage. There were far too many things that needed to be done that he should not being doing himself. Hell in some parts of Europe they even had servants to wipe his arse for him. He'd have his servants, his hunting buddies, and probably a bodyguard or two with him from morning to night. Unless he gave them the slip somehow.


Which is the thing. He doesn't have any of those people. He ought to, sure, but obviously he feels secure at least making short trips alone.



The knight's are wearing (what looks roughly like) 16th century plate (with strangely 14th century through 16th century helmets on). Pike squares most definitely have been around, and so should early guns for that matter. You won't find them in the movie, because and this is the part that really casts your entire argument in doubt, Disney didn't give a single seconds thought for historical accuracy. I don't know why this bit about weaponry and superiority of cavalry shock warfare is relevant to your point though.

I misjudged the armor, I'll admit, but don't lie to me and say Disney doesn't care. I know for a fact that even during this period the company had an entire libraries worth of material to draw from. There's a difference between not caring and making an acceptable break for aesthetic purposes. Though I'll admit I screwed up on this specific point.



It took a story I knew and presented it in a context that was at least interesting. I agree the moral examination was not exactly amazing, but it at least kept my attention. It, however, was of course helped by the fact that it was fun and enjoyable. Without the wit of the musical I don't think anyone would remember the play.


The musical is honestly the only reason most people care about the story, lets not lie to ourselves. It's a damn fine musical, but the narrative it worked with is weak.



Hmm, fair enough I guess. But I really can't see getting bent out of shape over a little redesign. Now, when I saw the trailer I didn't exactly focus and analyze on it all (or even notice it only had 2 legs for that matter). But it didn't look that bad to me. Though for what it's worth, as far as dragons go 4 legs > 2 legs. But, I just don't see it as a big deal

The minor designs are one thing, but you seem to be ignoring the bigger concern. That is to say, the script was leaked and the script is awful. The trailers suggest that the leaked script was at least mostly legitimate and the wyvern is just one part of an entire tapestry of mediocrity. We can see exactly how bad this story is going to be ahead of time. We can see exactly how they mangle the original art direction with something much less interesting just by the already released material. We can see how bland this entire venture is, and we could have seen most of that a year ago.

When you have the script, the cast, the crew, the costumes, interviews, and release schedule(and can make some reasonable estimates for marketing), the actual movie itself becomes something of a formality. It's an uninteresting, unsubtle, derivative film slapped in a spot between much larger blockbusters. It's more or less going to be The Lone Ranger all over again.

[Avilan the Grey]

However, did you also seriously miss the other part of that statement? I mean a bunch of old ladies in the woods is one thing, but we're talking about a prince who feels safe enough in foreign territory to do so with no armor or weapons.

Which is the thing. He doesn't have any of those people. He ought to, sure, but obviously he feels secure at least making short trips alone.



It's a Disney movie. To make political and crime analyses depending on a Disney movie made in the late 50ies is idiotic. Disney cared (cares?) about as much about historical fact as they do that fish can't talk.

Edit: I haven't read the script, but um... costumes? What on earth is wrong with the costumes???
Oh and as for the dragon... Of course it won't have front legs. The crow that is turned into the dragin has two wings and two "back" feet, after all.

[Jayngfet]

It's a Disney movie. To make political and crime analyses depending on a Disney movie made in the late 50ies is idiotic. Disney cared (cares?) about as much about historical fact as they do that fish can't talk.


You know what, let me just stop beating around the bush, and get down to the point of the argument again. There was no war in the original story. There was never any hint of war in the story. Peaceful interaction was the norm, save for one faction led by someone we're supposed to feel sorry for now. The rest of the argument is essentially window dressing.



Edit: I haven't read the script, but um... costumes? What on earth is wrong with the costumes???
Oh and as for the dragon... Of course it won't have front legs. The crow that is turned into the dragin has two wings and two "back" feet, after all.

We've seen more than a few of the costumes in the trailers. Probably dozens of them in total. Half of them look like they're at least heavily based on the animated film, especially when they can be considered iconic. However for the obligatory battle scenes everyone wears grungy armor with no real flair to it. Likewise, Malefecent herself gets out of the iconic suit and instead wears something much softer and less striking for a good part of the movie, but the new suit is much less memorable and less striking either color wise or in silhouette. Though combined with the effects that adds even more problems, and basically what would normally be a few minor issues gets compounded into a total mess.

The crow isn't just a crow either. It's been changed into a shape-shifter character that manages to steal all of Maleficent thunder. He gets to be the dragon, he gets to deliver a bunch of one liners, and he basically takes up way more time than he should. Given that basically every other magical character is supposed to be able to change size and shape freely, it kind of raises even more logical holes to the plot.

[Eldan]

You know, if someone actually went back to the Fairytale instead of the Disney movie, something interesting could be made with the story. Not even necessarily the really old parts with the sleep rape and the ogresses. But having thirteen witches or fey, none of which are explicitely evil, just powerful and proud, would work quite well.

[Dienekes]

I'm gonna spoiler the bulk of the argument and leave the most relevant point out, simply because the last bit is the biggest issue and needs focus.



The example you're thinking of is admittedly broken. But generally speaking, a contract this big is indicative of a rather large degree of co-operation.



...but that wasn't the wedding. It was a ceremony to announce a wedding that'd happen in fifteen years time.



Not currently at war, no wars worth mentioning for the next fifteen years either too. There could have been some kind of unfathomably huge war going on with some country that was never mentioned once, but I'm disinclined to believe it given such a thing never came up once in conversation.


...One is clearly heavily based on the other. The costuming, set pieces, and even almost exact lines are taken wholesale. You can't claim them as being totally separate things when they obviously aren't.

However, did you also seriously miss the other part of that statement? I mean a bunch of old ladies in the woods is one thing, but we're talking about a prince who feels safe enough in foreign territory to do so with no armor or weapons.




Which is the thing. He doesn't have any of those people. He ought to, sure, but obviously he feels secure at least making short trips alone.



I misjudged the armor, I'll admit, but don't lie to me and say Disney doesn't care. I know for a fact that even during this period the company had an entire libraries worth of material to draw from. There's a difference between not caring and making an acceptable break for aesthetic purposes. Though I'll admit I screwed up on this specific point.



The musical is honestly the only reason most people care about the story, lets not lie to ourselves. It's a damn fine musical, but the narrative it worked with is weak.



The minor designs are one thing, but you seem to be ignoring the bigger concern. That is to say, the script was leaked and the script is awful. The trailers suggest that the leaked script was at least mostly legitimate and the wyvern is just one part of an entire tapestry of mediocrity. We can see exactly how bad this story is going to be ahead of time. We can see exactly how they mangle the original art direction with something much less interesting just by the already released material. We can see how bland this entire venture is, and we could have seen most of that a year ago.

When you have the script, the cast, the crew, the costumes, interviews, and release schedule(and can make some reasonable estimates for marketing), the actual movie itself becomes something of a formality. It's an uninteresting, unsubtle, derivative film slapped in a spot between much larger blockbusters. It's more or less going to be The Lone Ranger all over again.

I was actually going to write a whole huge thing. About how, if one king visits another a party will be thrown, and it will be huge (etiquette dictates), how it wouldn't matter if there was peace for 100 years the prince still would not have been allowed to go off on his own, and how just because it was never said that doesn't mean they were living in some utopia of peace. The kings have 2 scenes to talk about things, and they spend all of it getting drunk. That's all we're really given about anything in the inbetween years, and war and peace is not pertinent to the story so it should have been cut. And also, that yes the stories are linked but they are expressly not the same. Things will be changed in a reinterpretation no matter what.

But then I saw that the script was leaked. And honestly, at that point the argument becomes kind of pointless. I wasn't aware that the script was leaked. If it is and it's that bad, well, my initial feelings were correct and any argument to try and be fair with what limited information we've seen flies out the window. If it sucks it's going to suck.

And on a side note, I agree about Wicked.

[Avilan the Grey]

You know what, let me just stop beating around the bush, and get down to the point of the argument again. There was no war in the original story. There was never any hint of war in the story. Peaceful interaction was the norm, save for one faction led by someone we're supposed to feel sorry for now. The rest of the argument is essentially window dressing.

---

We've seen more than a few of the costumes in the trailers. Probably dozens of them in total. Half of them look like they're at least heavily based on the animated film, especially when they can be considered iconic. However for the obligatory battle scenes everyone wears grungy armor with no real flair to it. Likewise, Malefecent herself gets out of the iconic suit and instead wears something much softer and less striking for a good part of the movie, but the new suit is much less memorable and less striking either color wise or in silhouette. Though combined with the effects that adds even more problems, and basically what would normally be a few minor issues gets compounded into a total mess.

The crow isn't just a crow either. It's been changed into a shape-shifter character that manages to steal all of Maleficent thunder. He gets to be the dragon, he gets to deliver a bunch of one liners, and he basically takes up way more time than he should. Given that basically every other magical character is supposed to be able to change size and shape freely, it kind of raises even more logical holes to the plot.

I guess it boils down to me not worshipping the "original" movie.
I like the costumes. I like the look of the armors. I find whatever little we see of Maleficent's "changed costume" to look awesome (funny how nobody here has cried over the fact that her horns are horns, and not just a pointy hat, btw). And um... If you, from four trailers that barely features the crow, can tell that it will steal all her thunder, you are obviously a psychic. Or have read the leaked script. Which I haven't, but from what I know, it doesn't appear to be the case.

Edit: It seems the leaked script is a very early version or a fake, since from what I can see from Googling, the trailers alone are different from the "leaked" script.
For example the dragon scene, the finger prick scene, the baby curse scene are not in the leaked script at all, apparently.

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't "Worship" the Original movie. Is mainly a visual and animated spectacle. And its also got Maleficent...Oh wait.

She's so bloody iconic its built into the correct function of this very forum. Thats how Iconic she is.

And from what I could tell of googling the script IS similar to what's happening with the trailers albeit with a few differences.
Its an early script but its a terrible place to start with in the first place.

Point is the people who are not enthusiastic for this movie simply like Maleficent, and are not happy for a cliche trite re-interpretation of a character that didn't need one.

[Avilan the Grey]

I don't "Worship" the Original movie. Is mainly a visual and animated spectacle. And its also got Maleficent...Oh wait.

She's so bloody iconic its built into the correct function of this very forum. Thats how Iconic she is.

And from what I could tell of googling the script IS similar to what's happening with the trailers albeit with a few differences.
Its an early script but its a terrible place to start with in the first place.

Point is the people who are not enthusiastic for this movie simply like Maleficent, and are not happy for a cliche trite re-interpretation of a character that didn't need one.

On the other hand Scar, Ursula (Insert villain here) are too, because Maleficent is the only one with an unique name. The others are already in the dictionary. I bet if Ursula hadn't been a normal English name, it would have been added.

As for the script: I won't read it, because I don't want to be spoiled.

"Cliche trite re-interpretation"...
1. The original movie is just as filled with cliches. It is a Disney Animated feature after all. It's just the people grew up with those cliches.
2. Feel free not to watch it. Personally I am really looking forward to it, but then from what I have seen it looks better than the "original" to me. As I said above, Evil Villains (tm) that only do things because Evulz (tm) are not villains. They are animated obstacles that can be killed without a second thought, since they have no personality, only Evil Souls (tm).
3. I really hope they have added more from the original tale than the "original" had, since that movie was very very cleaned up for sensitive 20th century youth...

[Jayngfet]

On the other hand Scar, Ursula (Insert villain here) are too, because Maleficent is the only one with an unique name. The others are already in the dictionary. I bet if Ursula hadn't been a normal English name, it would have been added.


Nope, Maleficent is head and shoulders above them is the thing you aren't getting. She's iconic for a reason. Your Grandfather can probably remember watching her for the first time and seeing the spectacle of her, unlike any villain before her. If you check an art book, half the villains you keep bringing up are explicitly using her as an inspiration. She's iconic enough to be a building block for most of the other iconic villains. You can explicitly trace a set of decisions made on that one character forward through time and find influences everywhere else. I mean yeah, she herself has a basis in Snow White's villain, but the things built onto that base have become more important as later foundation than the earlier material itself did.

You can say that other iconic villains would count spelling wise, but not really. Frollo doesn't and he's from actual literature. Maleficent has been around for less time and obviously made a much, much bigger impression to the public. This isn't even an argument. That's why this movie is being made. When they wanted to give a villain a movie they didn't hand it to Hades or Ursula, they picked Maleficent. This is also why she's the one that gets the focus on every single TV Special and why she was the one given focus in all those Kingdom Hearts game. She is the villain, in the same sense that Phillip is the prince. Or how the castle they reworked is so iconic that it's the castle, the one Walt himself ordered built in Disneyland and had the spires plated in actual gold, and the one the company uses in it's logo to this day.

It's the same reason so many people were offended by Disney's screwups with The Lone Ranger and John Carter. Your feelings aside, this particular work is based on a seminal piece of western fiction, and the director and crew haven't really given it the respect it deserves. Worse, since we're all wary from the last two failures I just mentioned, we aren't really going to give Disney that much leeway here. Worse, Disney expects this to be a continuing trend, already pushing for even more live action remakes of animated movies they already did, remaking those movies specifically instead of the stories they're based on.

It's not just a mediocre, bland film. It's a mediocre, bland film that's the latest in a line that's got more misses than hits, and one that's being used as the lynchpin of a plan to launch even more mediocre, bland films. Every single one of these mediocre, bland films being films that try to cash in on things that were actually good rather than risk their own necks as original properties. It's mediocre and bland, because every bad decision compounds the last bad decision(questionable effects, with the characters costumed questionably, and those feeding from uninspired character design, all supported by writing that nobody who's actually read it likes). The decisions overall as a franchise compound the mediocrity into something that's kind of offensive from a standpoint of ideals.

The things you hope are in this movie are not in the movie. This movie adds another two dimensional bad guy, cleans up any kind of moral issue you might get from a story like this, and generally wastes any potential it's premise might have. You can say you aren't going to read the script, but not knowing how something is going to be won't really change the results here.

[Scowling Dragon]

On the other hand Scar, Ursula (Insert villain here) are too, because Maleficent is the only one with an unique name. The others are already in the dictionary. I bet if Ursula hadn't been a normal English name, it would have been added.

Your right. Im a fool about that.


1. The original movie is just as filled with cliches. It is a Disney Animated feature after all. It's just the people grew up with those cliches.

People grow up with tropes. A Cliche is a poorly done trope. This movie is full of tired (With no fresh twist), poorly done tropes.


2. Feel free not to watch it. Personally I am really looking forward to it, but then from what I have seen it looks better than the "original" to me. As I said above, Evil Villains (tm) that only do things because Evulz (tm) are not villains. They are animated obstacles that can be killed without a second thought, since they have no personality, only Evil Souls (tm).

OK then, dig to the center of the core and you get the real reason for the belief. If you believe so I can not convince you otherwise.

I guess Sauron also is not a villain. Cause "Evilz"


3. I really hope they have added more from the original tale than the "original" had, since that movie was very very cleaned up for sensitive 20th century youth...

You mean rape? Uh yeah. Sure. That will ring well with the audiences of today.

[ArlEammon]

Your right. Im a fool about that.



People grow up with tropes. A Cliche is a poorly done trope. This movie is full of tired (With no fresh twist), poorly done tropes.



OK then, dig to the center of the core and you get the real reason for the belief. If you believe so I can not convince you otherwise.

I guess Sauron also is not a villain. Cause "Evilz"



You mean rape? Uh yeah. Sure. That will ring well with the audiences of today.

My eyes are melting from my sockets.

[Scowling Dragon]

My eyes are melting from my sockets.

Well it does. The original story is not very pretty at all.

[Eldan]

He's right. In the very, very original story (pre-Grimm), the prince has sex with the sleeping princess, then drags her off while she's still comatose. She later wakes up by accident.

[Talakeal]

He's right. In the very, very original story (pre-Grimm), the prince has sex with the sleeping princess, then drags her off while she's still comatose. She later wakes up by accident.

I thought it was the pain of giving birth to the prince's child that woke her up?

[Eldan]

There's probably different versions, there tend to be. I think in the version I read, the child sucked the spindle out of her finger.

[Avilan the Grey]

Both Morgoth and Sauron has motivations besides the Evulz:
Morgoth wants to ultimate destroy (erase it from existence) the world (which he created, ironically. The other "gods" didn't plan on creating anything). Sauron rather liked the world, but wanted to rule it and bend it to his image (100% Order over Chaos, the ultimate fascist dictator).

Anyway, my point of the original tale (versions thereof) is that the king and prince are not really the nicest of people in that one. But Disney polished all that away. Just like they removed the "cutting off body parts to fit in the glass shoes" that is the strongest memory I have as a kid of Snow White (not the Disney movie).

Again though, I don't understand the vibe I get that Disney are somehow being terrible people for doing whatever they want with their own stuff. Just like Spielberg or Lucas you don't have to like the Walkie Talkies Instead Of Guns, or the Stupid Muppet People At Jabba's Palace, but they have the right (and obligation, really) to change their own work as they want to.

(Edit: As for Grandpa... no idea. I think dad might have seen it as a kid, but probably not).

[Mystic Muse]

Again though, I don't understand the vibe I get that Disney are somehow being terrible people for doing whatever they want with their own stuff. Just like Spielberg or Lucas you don't have to like the Walkie Talkies Instead Of Guns, or the Stupid Muppet People At Jabba's Palace, but they have the right (and obligation, really) to change their own work as they want to.


And we have the right to dislike the changes if we want to.

Rarely is a villain truly motiveless. Maleficent, even in the original, did not just do things for the Evulz. It was pretty clear she felt she was scorned by the king, and in the case of the faeries, odds are there's a feud going on or something, and she doesn't just kill their flowers because evil.

There's a very large difference between petty, and "For The Evulz"

Maleficent is more just petty.

[Jayngfet]

Anyway, my point of the original tale (versions thereof) is that the king and prince are not really the nicest of people in that one. But Disney polished all that away. Just like they removed the "cutting off body parts to fit in the glass shoes" that is the strongest memory I have as a kid of Snow White (not the Disney movie).

Again though, I don't understand the vibe I get that Disney are somehow being terrible people for doing whatever they want with their own stuff. Just like Spielberg or Lucas you don't have to like the Walkie Talkies Instead Of Guns, or the Stupid Muppet People At Jabba's Palace, but they have the right (and obligation, really) to change their own work as they want to.

(Edit: As for Grandpa... no idea. I think dad might have seen it as a kid, but probably not).

I think you're misunderstanding the point, again.

The thing about a Fairy Tale is that you very rarely get a definitive origin point. Unless it's say, a Hans Christian Anderson story or something that can be attributed to a specific author, it's quite often going to be something told and retold a million times over orally and written many different ways across cultures. Snow White was never a specific character; Hell, the name itself can be attributed to three very different girls in three very different stories from entirely different regions. Even many of the ones we can attribute to specific authors tend to work in broad archetypes from before their time.

I have no problem with a reworking. Hell, even reworking the specific movie could be good. Could be. Anyone who puts a work out there is subject to scrutiny and criticism. If you don't want to be, don't publish and don't sell. That's a risk every artist takes, even working for a corporation with property they own. Hell, moreso, since we're expected to spend our own damn money to view it and can demand a refund at the theater if something is visibly awful. If either the company or the artist screws up, it's the duty of the viewing public to acknowledge this, or else the system breaks down. As a larger company I believe in Disney and I believe in the system itself, otherwise I wouldn't care as much as I do. If it's their right to make what they please, it's my right to react to it as I see fit.

If you're going to insist on walking in blind, that's your prerogative. But don't try to shame anyone giving actual criticism, or anyone who's essentially already seen it and given a bad review. Having a right to make something doesn't equal having a right to make something good.

[Hopeless]

You know when I first watched the trailer it got me wondering if Malificient was actually trying to protect the child from what she knew was coming... the loss of her innocence.

The disney animation I recall she wasn't called to the ceremony where the child was baptised or whatever it was where two of the three good fairies blessed the child and then after Malificient left the third fairy used her blessing to give the child a chance to survive the curse (along with the rest of the kingdom since they all fell asleep when she pricked her finger on that device as per Malificient's curse).

Me I was wondering how to shake this up entirely and wondered what if Malificient was the former Mistress of those four fairies and contrary to what would be told their blessings came at a very high price say the King earned his crown through war and to prevent him continuing Malificent pronounced her blessing to insure the kingdom knew peace until the child was placed in an enchanted sleep the result of those wishing war once more managing to overcome the rulers' disinclination to endanger their own child.

The resulting battle was only lost once Malificent found someone worthy of the child she had blessed and faked the subsequent battle to insure he earned his right to marry the now grown princess and Malificient quietly stepped aside to let them have their own lives keeping an eye out in case the same bad element that tried to kill her ward came looking for trouble.

That story would then reveal that a bard was writing up the story with a maiden listening pointing out how maybe the menfolk might prefer the evil fairy to be the bad guy so explaining how the original story ended up like it is and then the ultimate revelation is that the maiden is Malificient no longer worried over her former ward and building a life for herself whilst her former apprentices are busy training their own apprentices unaware of how they had been well and truly outplayed learning for themselves the problems she faced teaching them.

I'd find that more interesting since its easy enough to scare those watching with the unknown but a genuinely interesting and involving story might take a bit more work.

[MLai]

Nope, Maleficent is head and shoulders above them is the thing you aren't getting. She's iconic for a reason.
....
....
You can say you aren't going to read the script, but not knowing how something is going to be won't really change the results here.
*Charles Foster Kane applause*
Gaddamn that was well said. This thread should have ended at that post.

For the record I didn't doubt your knowledge on Disney even in the Frozen thread. That other poster was right; in the end we were arguing over different things (last I checked), all the stirred-up emotions aside. You were talking about Frozen's setting, while I was talking about how in spite of all that, your starting premise was that the Elsa-analog is incompetent which defeated the purpose of the thought exercise. I'm writing this here because I don't intend to revisit that thread.