MovieChat Forums > Maleficent (2014) Discussion > Does anyone see this film as an insult t...

Does anyone see this film as an insult to the original animated classic?

posted 10 years ago by doc-ahmad-almaiman
87 replies | jump to latest

In my opinion, I think this movie is somewhat entertaining to an extent. Angelina's performance is beyond words. Elle Fanning is somewhat annoying at times. Sharto Copley was really serious and grim and dark, pretty cool. Everyone else acted a little silly.

But overall, as a movie on its own, like if you didn't know that this was in anyway related to the classic, I think it's pretty good. However, as a somewhat different take or reboot or remake or whatever it's trying to be, it doesn't fit in.

Examples:
- Prince Phillip seemed useless as opposed to the original where he was a breakthrough
- King Stefan was really mean, and I did not expect him to a villain. When the movie reached that point, I didn't know how to react.
- The fairies were absolutely pathetic by every single measure.

What do you guys think?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

Yes. This movie completely defeated the point of Maleficent's character to begin with.

[–] aparnakishen 10 years ago

I really enjoyed the movie and that's when I came across the imdb discussion on how many were dissatisfied with how the movie pissed over the original. Well don't they say evil is never born, it's made. I really liked the back story to the evil witch of the Moors.

And didn't the pixies bless that who ever will come in touch with you will love you .. so there u r, the kid was a natural, its just that she evoked Maleficent's motherly feelings and well, the kiss of true love always sounded so lame. Common, what can be more true than a mother's love (er, father too, am no feminist).

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

The main problem is that in order to essentially turn her into a redeemed villain (who was only really a villain for about 5 minutes), not only did they mess up the rest of the characters (the Sleeping Beauty fairies were fun but competent, Maleficent's were incompetent bozos that couldn't do anythING right) Then there's the issue of a victim taking her vengeance out on an innocent child.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

[–] TyffyC528 9 years ago

i absolutely LOVED what you just said because it's exactly true

[–] Rena_Mahone 10 years ago

Most definitely. It made no sense.

🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾

[–] Housefan2 10 years ago

But overall, as a movie on its own, like if you didn't know that this was in anyway related to the classic, I think it's pretty good.

We will have to agree to disagree here. This movie was made because Maleficent was such a popular villain and the princess franchise is a cash cow. Now, make the story completely original. What do you have? You have a one dimensional villain who is evil just because, you have a princess who is cute and kind but that's it, a love interest for the princess who doesn't do anything, you have the three faries who do nothing but bicker and act inept, you have the protagonist who does bad things because of (you guessed it), a man broke her heart, etc.

You have boring, underdeveloped characters and a plot that's been recycled many times over.

As to if it insulted the original movie, I would agree completely with you. The original had some great characters. Sure, you had the beautiful princess, the handsome and brave prince, and a love at first sight subplot. However, you also had three female protagonist who rescue men, fight dragons and save women. You also had a female antagonist whose power surpassed all.

She also reigned in chaos. She cursed infants to die, kidnapped a prince to keep the curse in place, and even psychologically tortured her captive by letting him know what one day, after a life time in her dungeon, he will be released and only released because the woman that he loves is gone forever. This films takes these great characters and destroys them.

Lizzie

To love another person is to see the face of God! - Les Miserables

[–] cheedo 10 years ago

Yep. And despite Disney critics' braying that real!Aurora has "no personality" just because she has less screen time (Jasmine and Elsa are excused from this accusation apparently) but no, she had a good personality, and they dismissed it totally in this, half because Elle Fanning is just a rather flat actor and half because sadly Disney Co and most people today just don't seem to understand Aurora. They just think she sings and sleeps and that's it. She's also responsible, sly, classy, imaginative, and doesn't speak up for herself much, but nobody sees that.

So giving Aurora a one dimensional personality, making the awesome fairies incompetent idiots, making Phillip useless, and demonizing a good father and king like Steffan (one of the only Disney kings and dads ever to actually take his daughter's feelings into account regarding a political marriage) for no reason other than to justify the actions of a man-hating harpy. Who is another problem in herself. This movie 100% defeats the point of real!Maleficent. she's a living symbol of evil who didn't need to be layered and have a cliche tragic backstory.

Stuff like this movie just makes me worried for how future Disney movies will be.

[–] fatshieronymous 10 years ago

This movie 100% defeats the point of real!Maleficent. she's a living symbol of evil who didn't need to be layered and have a cliche tragic backstory.

Agreed. I always interpreted the Maleficent of Disney's Sleeping Beauty as being evil incarnate; she was a creature who sought to commit evil deeds simply for the purpose of doing so, and she didn't operate under normal or accepted human rules. What could a mere human do when faced with that kind of unpredictable (and far too powerful) depravity? Talk about a losing battle! To me, that's the reason Maleficent has endured as Disney's top villain, and she didn't/doesn't need to have a tragic backstory in order for her wickedness to seem justifiable.

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

Jasmine and Elsa are excused because they are not the protagonists, and in Jasmine's case, not the title character.

The rest of your points I agree with.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

[–] Caeradwyn 10 years ago

I watched Sleeping Beauty for the first time in over a decade only last year. What struck me about it, apart from feeling that the drawings (not the actual animations mind) were not as good as I remembered, was how simplistic the story felt and how one-dimensional the characters seemed. I think many of the classic Disney films have gotten a bit of a "get out of jail, free" card over the years, simply because of them being from the classic Walt days, and not necessarily because of the merits of the storyline. True, it will always be a classic, but I hardly see Maleficent as an insult to the original. True, it changes the entire story of the original, and thus needs to be seen as a stand-alone work, rather than a back-story. This surprised me a little bit, but I didn't mind it. I would never suggest that it's a better overall film than the original, but they are two very different creatures indeed.
Then again, I never felt that Sleeping Beauty was the best of the classic Walt Disney films, not did I have any kind of intimate connection to the character of Maleficent, for that I feel that 99% of the old Disney characters are way too one-dimensional.
I also happen to be partial to stories where human greed and ambition are the basis of evil, because it tends to be very close to reality, and one of the most believable motivations for evil in existence.

Maleficent (the film, not the character) is pretty much an orgy in beautiful visuals and a role practically written to show off the acting abilities of Angelina Jolie. As such, I think it does a great job.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

When you're actually facing danger, everything becomes very one-dimensional. You don't get the time and luxury to think about the morality in what you have to do to survive. To me, that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats live in such a luxurious fantasy land, catered to with a "Poor me" attitude so much, they can't actually see reality when its right in front of them. Republicans can see reality and they take their need to "improve" reality a bit too far. You can sit there, watching these movies, judging this character, that character, this theme, that theme, this story, that story from the comfort of your own living room. You're not living in the movies. You aren't actually facing down a giant, hideous dragon. You know deep down, there is no such thing but it can sure look real as hell in the movie. So, you feel you're entitled to judge a character like Stefan having to battle that giant monster, which could kill so many of his people. LOL. Have you known any who has faced odds like that? In this fantasy land which is full of medieval and psychotic threats like that, how can anyone really judge these characters based on our own moralities?

The only character I will judge for her actions and for very good reason is Maleficent herself. It takes a really awful person to try and get back at someone by condemning their newborn baby with a horrible curse in the first place.

That's multidimensional thinking. It doesn't sit well with most people.

[–] NBates1 10 years ago

Not to me. I accepted it as a different take on the story (which has had many adaptations), and I loved it.

"We all go a little mad sometimes..." - Norman Bates

[–] summerishere77 10 years ago

100% agree!

I don't look at Maleficent and look at Sleeping Beauty and think "Oooh same story" They're stand alone movies with different view points and I enjoy both.
You can call me 'Mayor Chapstick.'

[–] carjones51 10 years ago

Yeah, I agree w/you! I enjoyed the movie as a different take on the story.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

YES. It pissed all over the original. It made the most powerful female villain into a weak, sympathetic victim. It turned a great heroic male character like Philip into a stranger off the street who is only enamored by Aurora after she goes into her coma. It turns a natural fight of live or die between men and Maleficent into a feminist cause, which once again weakens the power Maleficent had in the original tale. It turned the smart and capable fairies into bumbling retards.

[–] tigerbos 10 years ago

You should know all about the fairies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-09OhQPiIg#t=85

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

I really want to know. How old are you?

[–] Bl_zz 10 years ago

The original? You mean the story where the girl is raped by her "hero" in her everlasting sleep? Or did you mean the animated movie, which is not the origin of this story and is in fact built after multiple stories, merged in one? Just drop it man.

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 10 years ago

Not at all.

[–] marteenuz 10 years ago

What are you, a Real Housewife? Are you going to have a showdown with Disney Studios and demand an apology? Upend tables and pull hair? Snap out of it.

The cartoon version is itself a ripoff of a 400 year old fairy tale. (I hate to belabor the obvious, but since some Kanye fans actually asked who Paul McCartney was, one can't be too careful).

Over a year ago, Disney was ready to co-opt a religious holiday, El Dia de Los Muertos (The day of the Dead), and give it the Disney treatment; they only backed down because of the protest it aroused in the Hispanic community.

All Disney does is steal, and then copyright their thefts. At least in this instance they stole from themselves.

They are a greedy entertainment monolith that needs to keep generating consumer fans of their wretched 'Princess' franchise.

In this instance, as in 'Frozen', they are strenuously trying to fend off criticism of the princess syndrome by claiming to cast the female characters as strong and powerful in some way. To me, if the only way to show this is to turn the men into helpless dolts, that's a failure as well.

Insisting on copies that are no different from the original is not only pointless, in this film genre it is dangerous for little girls and young women. Enough of aspiring to lie inert and await rescue. That whole concept in male-female relationships needs to be over. It also causes stress and anxiety to men who don't realize they don't need to carry the whole burden alone.

[–] Blackjack254 10 years ago

"All Disney does is steal, and then copyright their thefts."

Disney takes public domain tales and puts their own spin on them OR they legally buy the rights from the original Creator and put their own spin on THOSE, regardless of how the creator feels about it afterwards. (For every P.L. Travers, [hated Mary Poppins], there is a Dodie Smith [Loved 101 Dalmatians])

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

You were insulted that Kristoff was portrayed as just as flawed as Anna & Elsa while still being as much of a positive character?

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

It was pretty clear he was teasing Anna with that statement.

He puts Anna and Sven before himself, as evidenced by the wolf scene (as well as the climax). He clearly loves his adoptive family, despite their more embarrassing aspects.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ursulo911 10 years ago

Yes I found this movie very insulting to the original since the original is a masterpiece and a classic. Also I hated how they renamed the fairies and made King Stephan evil. They made all the amazing characters that we saw in the original extremely crappy and i think this is not a film to be shown from Maleficents perspective it is an entirely different movie to the original and I wish this film was never made.

[–] doc-ahmad-almaiman 10 years ago

Well thought!

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

Did they actually rename the fairies? I didn't notice that.

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

Figures the likes of you wouldn't notice women's names.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

Yes, they did. They're now called Knotgrass, Flittle, and Thistletwit.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

How pathetic.

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

"I guess you're right. I don't think Disney has made a damsel in distress since Sleeping Beauty."

Not in the traditional sense at least.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.