Does anyone see this film as an insult to the original animated classic? - Maleficent (2014) Discussion

[–] Comrade_Lizard 10 years ago

No. Sleeping Beauty still exists and is available. Maleficent existing as its own separate entity isn't an insult anymore than Wicked is to The Wizard of Oz. There's room in this world for both interpretations.

Seid ihr das Essen? Nein, wir sind der JÃ¤ger!

reply

[–] Housefan2 10 years ago

I really wish people would stop with the Wicked/Maleficent comparsions. They're completely different with regard to how they serve as a prequel, midquel and sequel to The Wizard of Oz/Sleeping Beauty.

First, Wicked truly gives us a complete backstory. We get to see Elphaba's birth, we get to see her in college, we learn why Elphaba is shunned by her father and lonely and isolated as a young woman, we see where her passions lie, we see her find friends and fall in love and, finally, we see how she chooses to fight for what's right no matter what the cost. It also gives us a backstory for every character we meet in the Wizard of Oz.

Maleficent doesn't give us a complex character. It shows us that Maleficent is a typical woman scored. She's upset because a man broke her heart. And her backstory lasts about 30 minutes, maybe less. And the only other character in Sleeping Beauty who has a backstory in Maleficent is Stefan. And his is more caricature than character. He's the power-hungry man. Yawn.

Second, Wicked allows the events of the Wizard of Oz to unfold exactly as we saw them on screen. However, it pulls back the emerald curtain to let us see what was happening while Dorothy was strolling down the yellow brick road. The Wicked Witch of the West still torments and threatens Dorothy in Munckinland. But we don't see that. We have to rely on the movie to know that. What we see instead is the events leading up to that moment. Nessa's death was orchestrated in order to set a trap for Elphaba and Glinda gave away Nessa's shoes because Elphaba (in Glinda's eyes) stole Fiyero from Glinda.

Elphaba still follows Dorothy to the Emerald City and later kidnaps her. Again, except for Dorothy crying while Elphaba threatens her, we don't get to see the events from the Wizard of Oz. We're required to rely on our knowledge from the movie. What we see instead is how Elphaba finally reached her breaking point. She feels that every person she trusted and cared about has either betrayed her or is dead. She feels truly alone. And Nessa's shoes are the one thing she has left and this stupid farm girl won't take them off because Glinda told her not to.

We see Elphaba chase Dorothy around her castle and ultimately melt when Dorothy throws water on her. What we don't see is that Fiyero is the Scarecrow and Elphaba set up the melting when she lit him on fire in a room where a convenient bucket of water just happened to be sitting. We also get to see Glinda arrive and talk Elphaba down. We also know that water doesn't melt Elphaba. Instead, she goes through a trap door (a great salute to Margaret Hamilton since that's how she actually performed the melting scene) and hides until Fiyero comes for her.

Maleficent doesn't do any of this. Instead, it just writes off everything that happened in Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent no longer curses a child to die, she no longer kidnaps Prince Phillip, attempts to kill him and Flora, Fauna and Merriweather, she no longer puts up a forest of thorns and she doesn't even turn into a dragon.

Finally, Wicked doesn't have to make the good guys in The Wizard of Oz into villains or inept buffoons or pointless add-ons in order to make Elphaba a good character. Dorothy is still the lost farm girl from Kansas. The Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion and Glinda still help and assist Dorothy in getting home. If Wicked has one fault it is the Tinman. However, he doesn't make Elphaba look bad or good to the audience. I just hated Boq from beginning to end.

Maleficent takes the characters we loved from the original and makes them into villains (Stefan), inept buffoons (the three fairies) or pointless add-ons (Prince Phillip). And the characters that really could have been strengthened from the original (Aurora and the Queen) are left alone or used to make another character look worse (Stefan refuses to go to his dying wife).

Wicked is an example of an extremely well down backstory tale. Maleficent isn't a backstory at all.

Lizzie

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

reply

[–] sfmar 10 years ago

Wicked is an example of an extremely well down backstory tale. Maleficent isn't a backstory at all.

Exactly - Maleficent's major problem was, is, and shall always be a poor, shoddily written screenplay.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

Exactly.

On a side note, you don't like me do you, sfmar?

reply

[–] mooncalled2 10 years ago

First, Wicked truly gives us a complete backstory. We get to see Elphaba's birth, we get to see her in college, we learn why Elphaba is shunned by her father and lonely and isolated as a young woman, we see where her passions lie, we see her find friends and fall in love and, finally, we see how she chooses to fight for what's right no matter what the cost. It also gives us a backstory for every character we meet in the Wizard of Oz.

Did you actually see the film or are you just jumping on the bandwagon? Maleficent opens in the fairy world of the main character's childhood. We see her interact with creatures in her world. We see her meet Stefan as a little boy. We see their relationship develop through heir childhood and turn into first love in their teen years.

Maleficent doesn't give us a complex character. It shows us that Maleficent is a typical woman scored. She's upset because a man broke her heart. And her backstory lasts about 30 minutes, maybe less. And the only other character in Sleeping Beauty who has a backstory in Maleficent is Stefan. And his is more caricature than character. He's the power-hungry man. Yawn.

Maleficent didn't turn evil because of a broken heart. Stefan stole her wings for his own selfish greed. That betrayal was Maleficent's driving force. Don't you see that? Moreover, Stefan was an orphan who never had anything of his own. He very much wanted to be important. He is more complicated than you give him credit for.

Maleficent was billed as a retelling. Disney didn't trick anyone. Everyone knew what to expect before walking into the theater. If you did see the film, given your opinion, why did you go see it?

reply

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

Actually, their teen and childhood are pretty glossed over. There's not much development aside from a narrator telling us rather than showing us.

For example:
"Maleficent opens in the fairy world of the main character's childhood."

Where her parents? Did they die? How? Do/can fairies reproduce asexually?

"We see her interact with creatures in her world."

Minimally. Cinderella in the most recent film interacted more with animals that couldn't talk than with the creatures of her world.

"We see her meet Stefan as a little boy. We see their relationship develop through heir childhood and turn into first love in their teen years."

No, we don't, we see 3 meetings, with a narration of how Maleficent and the Boy's romance blossom and the 3rd meeting being about the betrayal.

"Stefan stole her wings for his own selfish greed. That betrayal was Maleficent's driving force."

Which points to a major problem: In the original, Malefient was simply a badass who cursed a child because she was evil. Evil, curse an innocent. Makes sense. With this Maleficent, she's supposed to be a victim acting out. Why is she cursing the child and not her attacker? By making Maleficent a protagonist and a victim, you run into the problem with her motivations behind cursing an innocent. Why would a victim harm another innocent?

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

reply

[–] dwellman21 10 years ago

You know good and well I could jump on your ass just like you've jumped on mine with the sammmmmme kind of nitpicks about Frozen and Elsa's backstory/motivation that you're doing with Maleficent here.

I'm just sayin. Come on now.

reply

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

You have no argument here. Begone, before Maleficent drops her awesome lightning bolt on you.

reply

[–] noway234-1 10 years ago

I remember seeing this in the movie and feeling nothing but pain. It's not a good film at all and there is one reason why I truly detest this film... they took Maleficent, the greatest disney villain of them all, a woman who referred to herself as "The Mistress of all evil" who wanted to kill a child because she thought it'd be fun and decided to turn her into a wood nymph that got raped by a king and was upset about it for 1 day.

Also on top of that, I'm sorry but "Deep Deep Sleep Like Death" is not even close to a threat. That entire scene where they basically just recreated the original party from the movie was great, Angelina was the Maleficent we remember, it was awesome... and then they removed all tension by not letting Maleficent place the death curse on the kid. That moment hurt so much that when I saw it in the cinema I distinctly remember actually yelling out "OH COME ON!" because I couldn't believe they had done that.

reply

[–] TheChamCham 10 years ago

She was not a wood nymph, he was not yet a king and I believe she was upset about it for most of the sixteen years covered in the film.

"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"

reply

[–] noway234-1 10 years ago

She was more or less a wood nymph, or at least that was the look they were going for. He was a prince and became a king pretty goddamn soon, oh and for someone who was upset for so long she sure did spend a lot of time looking after the baby, bonding with it and not killing it... why the heck even have the 'he raped me so I'm going to hurt his kid' plot in there at all? Maleficent was The Mistress of All Evil, and now she is the raped wood nymph (Of Fairy, should I say Fairy because either way, not scary!) getting revenge... a huge step down

reply

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

He wasn't a prince, he was a thief and then a servant.

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

reply

[–] seng_sopheak1992 10 years ago

I agree with you. I don't understand why Disney created a movie which is disconnected from its original story. I really admire Once Upon a Time. It adapts and blends in very well with old tales in a way that it keeps the old story alive while at the same time creates a new unique tale of its own. Personally, I think Maleficent would be much better if it does not contrast with Sleeping Beauty.

reply

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

Personally, I think Maleficent would be much better if it does not contrast with Sleeping Beauty.

If this movie had been written entirely as its own story, the characters given completely different names, any element related to the original Disney's Sleeping Beauty thrown out, then maybe it would have worked. Maybe. However, the point of this whole project was to give Disney's most iconic villain her own movie, and they failed because this character may look like Maleficent, but it's not her.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gunnies799 10 years ago

No. I don't see it as an "insult". Who cares that it is different from the classic? I for one did not want to see (nor expect to see) an accurate remake of the animated Sleeping Beauty film. That would have been an insult and most likely boring. If I wanted to see Sleeping Beauty, I would watch Sleeping Beauty and not Maleficient.

reply

[–] JustEs 10 years ago

People who love the original and went to see this remake do.

It's like people who love "Cinderella" and were so very happy to see what the live version was like.

reply

[–] StrongRex 10 years ago

We were not expecting a remake. I for one, did NOT want them to tell the story of Sleeping Beauty at all, I wanted to see a whole new different story about how and why Maleficent became evil. But this movie WAS a remake, except it switched the hats on every good/evil character and completely changed the story. They missed the point of Maleficent's character to begin with.

reply

[–] blaque108 10 years ago

At first I thought this movie was a remake but I enjoyed the movie it told the evil lady side that we all hated in the Sleeping Beauty film.

reply

[–] behamut 9 years ago

This is exactly what bothered me the most about it. I wasn't looking for a remake, or a live action version of Sleeping Beauty. I wanted to see it as a movie that explained the origins of Maleficent, and tell the story from her side of the coin. That would have been really interesting.

Maybe we were misguided by what we saw in the original because we only saw it from one side?

Maybe we didn't have all the details and judged too harshly?

Maybe there was more to the story that would make us think twice?

That sounds really intriguing. Yes, she'd still put the death curse on the kid. Yes, she'd still be hunting her down for 16 years once she disappeared. Yes, she'd still kidnap Philip to keep him away from Aurora. Yes, she'd still turn into a dragon and be killed at the end. But, in the hands of a competent screenwriter, it'd be for a very different reason than we originally thought.

What did they do though? They took the easy route and just rewrote the whole thing. She wasn't the evil villain we once thought she was because they simply removed all her villainous deeds from the story.

It'd be like if they told the story of Snow White from the wicked Queen's point of view, but, in that film, instead of her being jealous of Snow White's beauty and ordering the huntsman to kill her, they made us sympathetic to the queen by making the king an abusive father, and the queen uses the power of the mirror to ask where she can safely hide her daughter from harm. The mirror tells her of the seven dwarfs, so the queen orders the huntsman to take her beloved daughter to hide with the dwarfs while she tells the king that their daughter has died in the woods. Then, the king can't hurt her anymore, but in turn abuses the queen. Which she takes because she's a loving mother and it's worth it to protect her daughter.

It may make for a good movie, but it would no longer be the story of Snow White!

That's exactly what they did here. Good movie? Sure. Maleficent? No way.

reply

[–] andrewpi7 9 years ago

I wanted to see it as a movie that explained the origins of Maleficent

This movie does a poor job with that.

What did they do though? They took the easy route and just rewrote the whole thing.
Maleficent? No way.

Agreed. It's a completely different story.

reply

[–] Mhjm6 10 years ago

Your post is an insult to this board, Gloomy Gus.

reply

[–] maggierose1978 10 years ago

Here is how I felt the film could have been much better.

1) The backstory was good, this helped the viewers see what made Maleficent into the wicked witch that she was. I liked this part.

2) Show King Stefan's turmoil about what he did to Maleficent and how he was affected, how he actually feared for his life and the life of his child and wife, how he slowly progressed into the villian that the film portrayed him as.

3) Kept the love story between Prince Phillip and Aurora, and we saw that Prince Phillip and Aurora met at previous times and that they did not know that they were in love until Prince Phillip's kiss to awaken Sleeping Beauty.

4) I liked how the relationship (which was strictly platonic - mother/daughter) changed Maleficent.

5) I still think that Prince Phillip should have awoken Aurora from her sleep with a kiss, and that Aurora and Prince Phillip would have fought to save Maleficent.

6) I believe that the thing that would have really made you feel for Maleficent is that she and King Stefan should have died. I think that it would have been more dramatic if Maleficent died saving Aurora and Prince Phillip, and the this act of love and kindness could have been what united the two worlds. Additionally, it would have been only fair, with keeping with the theme of the movie, that King Stefan would die because of his slow desent into madness (not only because of what he did, but also because he did this to the one person that he cared about because of his ambition - i.e., power breeds corruption).

I honestly thing that King Stefan should have really loved Maleficent, but he was too ambitious and this blinded him, so the story line should have shown that he really loved her and that his actions, even though it got him what he thought he wanted, did not get him what he really wanted (his true love). I do think that it would have been more heartbreaking if she did die with King Stefan. This is of course after we saw the incredible change in her over the years and the good person that she became. There was a whole depth of character that was missing and that could have been touched upon.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

None of that would perfectly fit their feminist, man-hating agenda. Showing a woman inspiring strength in another woman like Maleficent inspired strength in Aurora by giving her a completely unwarranted / rapey kiss while sleeping is a lot more equal and decent than showing an "evil man" making her strong with an "unwarranted," "rapey" kiss.

reply

[–] maggierose1978 10 years ago

Luke, Hollywood goes through phases. At one time Hollywood produced films that were more male dominated. In fact, for the majority of its existence, Hollywood's major films have been male dominated and the highest paid actors were all males. We are seeing a shift in that and men are being portrayed, in fairy tales, as villains. This is just a phase. In five or ten years down the road another group will be portrayed as villains.

You have a right to feel the way you do. I, as a Christian, do not like the recent portrayals of Christians in Hollywood. It is one dimensional and it does not really portray us in an accurate light. If you are not satisfied with the way that Hollywood is portraying men in fairy tales, specifically Disney, then the best thing you can do is voice your opinion to the Disney Corporation itself.

It may not do any good, but if enough people continue to write, and if enough people continue to complain directly to the company, then they will get the picture and quite posibly change the format of their stories to one that portrays both genders in a positive light (both genders good and bad) and not just one dimensional.

reply

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

Frozen, Tangled, Brave, TPATF all had non-villainous males and some of them are great charscters. The HTTYD series has a heroic male as its main character. Kit is portrayed as a good person in the most recent Cinderella movie, by Dusney. The idea that males are only being portrayed only as villains or poor caricatures is utterly riduculous, especially when you look at the statustics of male characters to female ones.

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

reply

[–] maggierose1978 10 years ago

If you were responding to me specifically, I have a question to help me clarify your comment.

1) When did I mention the statement that "men are only being portrayed as villains"?

What I stated was that we are seeing a shift in men being portrayed, in fairy tales, as villains. This is especially true with fairy tales written by Grimm. And, we are seeing that shift. Think about the original Cinderella, it was the step mother and her daughters that were villians. In Snow White, it was the step mother (or witch) that was the villain. In the original Sleeping Beauty, it was Maleficent that was the villain. In Hansel and Gretel, the villain was the stepmother and the witch. In 101 Dalmatians the villain was Cruella DeVille, In the Little Mermaid, the villain was Ursela. The Wizard of Oz, the villain was the Wicked Witch of the West.

There are many Disney tales that feature men as villains; Peter Pan (Captain Hook), The Lion King (Scar or Scab, or whatever his name was), Bambi (the Hunter), Aladin (Jafar), Beauty and The Beast (Gaston) - now I have the Gaston song in my head.

We are now seeing a shift in these traditional fairy tales, specifically those that revolve around Grimm Fairy tales. Now the witch in Hansel and Gretel is the victim because these two children were eating her house. Ursela was actually a victim because the King of the Merpeople unfairly banished her. Cruella DeVille was traumatized as a child by her abusive father who use to have his dogs pinned up and/or bite her whenever she would screw up. These are not real examples, but different takes on what we (well many people) grew up knowing.

Some people will view this change in the interpretation of fair tales, especially when they deviate from the original plot as Maleficent did, as men being villainous or of little use in the plot of the fair tales.

They have the right to feel what they want and they have the right to complain. It's called venting. If said individuals want to initiate a change in the way the fairy tales are being changed, then they should complain to the company that is changing the fairy tales; in this case the Disney Corporation.

reply

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

Well, these feminist phases sure make for horrible cinema.

reply

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

You're just mad you can't use 100% of movies to brainwash women into thinking they need men.

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

reply

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

I get it now. You're mother never loved you. That's why you think a kiss on the forhead is equivalent to a kiss on the lips.

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

reply

[–] maggierose1978 10 years ago

Once again to whom are you directing the comment towards?

reply

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 10 years ago

Use nest view.

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

reply

[–] maggierose1978 10 years ago

It is on the nested view, but I couldn't tell if you were responding to my original post or Luke's response to my original post.

Anyway,

Happy Easter.

reply

[–] dwellman21 10 years ago

2) Show King Stefan's turmoil about what he did to Maleficent and how he was affected, how he actually feared for his life and the life of his child and wife, how he slowly progressed into the villain that the film portrayed him as.

That's the #1 thing holding me back from rating it as high as I wanted to. It sucks that storyless movies like the Transformers movies get seemingly endless hours to not do a bloody thing, yet a film like had to feel so rushed. Having more scenes showing him really struggling with the guilt of what he did vs. justifying it to himself, ESPECIALLY after Maleficent curses Aurora, would have gone a long way to make him a stronger character.

3) Kept the love story between Prince Phillip and Aurora, and we saw that Prince Phillip and Aurora met at previous times and that they did not know that they were in love until Prince Phillip's kiss to awaken Sleeping Beauty.

5) I still think that Prince Phillip should have awoken Aurora from her sleep with a kiss, and that Aurora and Prince Phillip would have fought to save Maleficent.

One of the things I liked about Maleficent's kiss being the one to awaken Aurora is that it completes her arc. She thought Stefan's betrayal destroyed any love left she had in her heart, therefore she intentionally made the catch to Aurora's curse one of true love because she "knew" it didn't exist anymore. She almost let what happened to her make her just as bad as Stefan, but through her relationship with Aurora, she realizes that he DIDN'T take everything away from her as she thought and she could still recover. But it's not so easy to undo what she did since she initially can't remove the curse off at first, and even worse having to admit to Aurora about what she did. Now in that moment, she could have chosen to regress. She could've went "Well screw you then, Aurora! After all I've done for you! I'm not reaaaally sorry anyways!" and went back to being vindictive. But instead she fought for her regardless after growing to care for her that much.

Prince Phillip seemed like a nice young boy and all, but the point that they wanted to make (which was done much better here than in that OTHER movie...) is that there's more than one kind of love. The fairies and Maleficent herself just assumed that it meant romantic love, and while Phillip and Aurora had their little meet-cute that has the potential to go somewhere in the future, they didn't have the kind of relationship Aurora and Maleficent we've seen them build up. Could have he have helped some in the final battle as opposed to just completely disappear? Sure. But it really wouldn't have been the same if he was the one to break the curse.

6) *snip*

Hmm, I see where you're going with that. Like having Aurora and Phillip being like the new representatives of Maleficent and Stefan and having them be the new ambassadors of the land, I see where you're going with that. Although that may be a bit too dramatic for a Disney film.  But I don't mind the way it ended. It was a nice redemption story for Maleficent. Can't get too mad at that. 

reply

[–] youtubemisticaluser 10 years ago

Yes. Though I found Jolie astonishing I don't think Walt Disney would be happy with the idea or the film itself. For some reason he wanted the character to resemble the devil so I don't feel he'd appreciate a good Maleficent.

reply

[–] dwellman21 10 years ago

I just don't understand why Sleeping Beauty is considered a "classic" at all. Even when it was originally released it got a pretty mild reception, and it really doesn't hold up beyond its great looking background images.

What am I missing that everyone else seems to get from Sleeping Beauty? What am I missing about the "classic" Maleficent character who's barely even in the original movie to even matter? Even the three fairies being the ostensibly "lead" characters as some try to argue don't really do much or have any character development. Aurora's conflict isn't at all interesting either, and the way they try to have a I'll Choose Love Naturally With Prince Phillip even though we already know they're destined for each other anyways, there's no tension there either.

I've tried watching it twice, and I just got bored with it. Snow White and Cinderella are simple too, but there's SOMETHING carrying those stories along, whether it's Cindy having to deal with her abusive step-family or even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs getting used to one another. There's so little driving Sleeping Beauty forward, and by the time Maleficent finally shows back up it's like "Oh...okay. I guess. Something's happening now, but it's not like I really care." If the original movie WANTED to go the route of "The Ultimate Evil Maleficent vs. The Ultimate Goody Goody Aurora", then have them interact in some sort of way so we can see why Aurora and the good guys are able to triumph over her, rather than just a generic sword fight with an admittedly cool looking dragon.

Maleficent was hardly relevant to the past Disney Sleeping Beauty story. They remedied that with this movie. King Stefan could have been cut from the original movie ENTIRELY and nothing would be missing. Not in this movie. Hell even AURORA is given at least a bit more to do in this movie as opposed to the very thing Frozen made fun of Anna for doing. All three of them are incredibly crucial to the plot and add to/say something about each other's character.

Prince Phillip was there to mainly make a point (and even then, still more impactful than he was in the last film. He was Prince Charming with a few more lines, that's about it), and let's be honest...the fairies were ALWAYS dumb. Think about it: In the original they take Aurora to the little cottage and on her 16th birthday go "Oh and BTW you're not really this country girl you're actually a princess we were keeping in hiding, but now that you're safe, you're cheduled to get married to some guy we pre-determined for you when you were a freaking baby." But then they act surprised when she isn't cool with that. Yeah no, this movie just took their dumbness to the extreme. Those fairies sucked.

To answer the thread's question, no this movie didn't insult the original animated "classic" because there was no classic to insult.

reply

[–] andrewpi7 9 years ago

I just don't understand why Sleeping Beauty is considered a "classic" at all. Even when it was originally released it got a pretty mild reception, and it really doesn't hold up beyond its great looking background images. What am I missing that everyone else seems to get from Sleeping Beauty?

Many movies and tv shows can receive mild reception when initially released and later become very popular with the most obvious example being Star Trek. Further, a $6 million budget generating $51.6 million at the box office is far from failure. I find it unlikely anyone will suddenly convince you to like a film targeted to kids with a few written words. Nevertheless, there are tons of reviews on IMDb you can read for why different people liked it and countless reviews online via google.

Sleeping Beauty has been the basis for theme park rides, games and other inspirations for over half a century, as well as becoming one of the jewels in the Disney Princess franchise. It was nominated for Academy and Grammy Awards for its score and soundtrack.

the way they try to have a I'll Choose Love Naturally With Prince Phillip even though we already know they're destined for each other anyways, there's no tension there either

It's a Disney kid's film from the 50s. Did you really think Cinderella wouldn't get together with her Prince or tense that Snow White would permanently die from the apple? You wouldn't, unless maybe you're a kid.

What am I missing about the "classic" Maleficent character who's barely even in the original movie to even matter? Maleficent was hardly relevant to the past Disney Sleeping Beauty story.

That makes it sound like you didn't see the film. Without Maleficent, the main antagonist, nothing matters and nothing would ever happen in the original and obviously Maleficent2014 would have never been made. The original Maleficent is often referred as one of the most famous female villains and with "all the powers of Hell" arguably the most powerful Disney villain. An entire live action movie was made for this animated character, so yes you're missing something. Unfortunately, Maleficent2014 turned this once merciless queen of all evil into a crying "misunderstood" victim and later Aurora's creepy stalker.

Even the three fairies being the ostensibly "lead" characters as some try to argue don't really do much or have any character development.
let's be honest...the fairies were ALWAYS dumb.

If you saw the whole film you would know without the 3 fairies, Maleficent would not have been defeated or minimize Maleficent's curse from "and die" to a sleep coma. In Maleficent2014 movie they are reduced to only bad comic relief, very weak magic users, pathetic adversaries for Maleficent and with no character development.

If the original movie WANTED to go the route of "The Ultimate Evil Maleficent vs. The Ultimate Goody Goody Aurora", then

The original movie never wanted nor was about Maleficent vs. Aurora. That would be like saying the original Terminator movie was about the Terminator vs. the fetus of John Connor.

King Stefan could have been cut from the original movie ENTIRELY and nothing would be missing. Not in this movie.

In Maleficent 2014, boring Prince Phillip could be cut from the movie ENTIRELY and nothing would be missing. Prince Phillip in Sleeping Beauty is the first Disney Prince to do, well, anything about the plight for the girl he loves. In Maleficent 2014, Prince Phillip hesitates to even kiss Aurora to try to save her life and is useless in both sword/fighting and tongue/word/wit in fighting evil or preventing it. At best, he's a male bimbo.

just a generic sword fight with an admittedly cool looking dragon.

In 2016 it may be generic, but in 1959, a film with a prince using a magic sword fighting a female shape-shifting powerful spell-caster who turns into a admittedly cool looking fire-breathing dragon was not generic. Further, even in the 1980s the D&D cartoon had critics claiming it was satanic/evil - so for a *1959* *kid's* film with a character using "all the powers of Hell" and have those powers be "cool looking" in your words was quite bold for the time.

Hell even AURORA is given at least a bit more to do in this movie

Yes, in this movie Aurora befriends her stalker and indirectly helps her stalker kill her father which then conveniently makes her queen and ruler. That's so much better. Further, the one thing Aurora does in this movie & it's a huge plot hole as it's absurd anyone would think breaking a case holding a severed body part would mean that severed body part wil then float & reattach itself... if someone had cut off Maleficent's arm or head would the same thing happen? 

Prince Phillip was there to mainly make a point

Yes, the point in Maleficent 2014 being that there is no truer love than the love built from the guilt and regret of a stalker that attacked you earlier.

reply

[–] dwellman21 9 years ago

That makes it sound like you didn't see the film. Without Maleficent, the main antagonist, nothing matters and nothing would ever happen in the original and obviously Maleficent2014 would have never been made. The original Maleficent is often referred as one of the most famous female villains and with "all the powers of Hell" arguably the most powerful Disney villain.

I barely saw HER in the film, that's for sure. And that's why I don't see her as an interesting or "powerful" villain; she doesn't actually DO much of anything or have that much interaction with the main characters we('re supposed to) care about, so other than a cool character design, there's really not much going on with that iteration of her. In the video game series Kingdom Hearts, she has a MUCH better character, being that cool conniving ringleader of all the Disney baddies, constantly throwing obstacles between our heroes goals. She actually, ya know, DOES STUFF in KH...in SB, not so much. Hell even The Queen from Snow White scared me more than OG Maleficent.

If you saw the whole film you would know without the 3 fairies, Maleficent would not have been defeated or minimize Maleficent's curse from "and die" to a sleep coma.

The movie keeps putting ME into a sleep coma everytime I try to give it another chance, so I guess that's a fair point. Still doesn't make them compelling characters that I actually care about, but hey, credit where credit is due.

The original movie never wanted nor was about Maleficent vs. Aurora.

It probably should have, then. At least it'd give this thing SOME reason to exist beyond "hey let's let our animators try some cool things out." This might as well be one of their anthology films like Make Mine Music or something like that if they were gonna skimp out on the story as badly as they did here.

In Maleficent 2014, boring Prince Phillip could be cut from the movie ENTIRELY and nothing would be missing.

Oh ho, I see what you did there, did the whole "copy my debate opponent to sound like a smartass" routine, nevvvvvver seen that before. I do love how you couldn't counter my King Stefan point and had to switch it to Prince Phillip xP

And even IF Prince Phillip is here just to set up a bait-and-switch moment, it's more than he ever did in the original 

Prince Phillip in Sleeping Beauty is the first Disney Prince to do, well, anything about the plight for the girl

That he's barely known for, like, AFTERNOON. But oh sure it's true love alright, mmhmm.

You keep saying it yourself, these are kids movies at the end of the day, so I could moralize your flick just as much as you're trying to moralize mine, soooo how about neither of us even bother going there, shall we?

Bottom line is, I don't even like LOVE this movie or anything, I only gave it a 6.0 rating, all I'm saying is that the idea they were trying to play around with in terms of a Revenge vs. Redemption story was a lot more interesting than the straight forward blandness of the original. Give me failed ambition over successful safeness any day of the week.

reply

[–] andrewpi7 9 years ago

I barely saw HER in the film, that's for sure. And that's why I don't see her as an interesting or "powerful" villain; she doesn't actually DO much of anything or have that much interaction with the main characters we('re supposed to) care about, so other than a cool character design, there's really not much going on with that iteration of her. In the video game series Kingdom Hearts, she has a MUCH better character, being that cool conniving ringleader of all the Disney baddies, constantly throwing obstacles between our heroes goals. She actually, ya know, DOES STUFF in KH...in SB, not so much. Hell even The Queen from Snow White scared me more than OG Maleficent.

I can find someone interesting or boring in a movie or real life within 2-5minutes (& that may change over time as they talk or act). I don't need to listen to them ramble on for 45minutes to determine that. Many tv stars have had roles that were only planned to be brief 1-time roles until they were found to be interesting by the public despite their short appearance. We hardly ever see anything of Sauron in Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't mean he wasn't powerful. To put it another way, there are countless characters from books and movies we will never see or hear about because prior audiences found them not interesting enough - much less have them get a big budget movie titled after them. I never played the video game Kingdom Hearts, but the fact that Maleficent was made the ringleader of all Disney villains speaks volumes about her fame and power... she was made queen of all evil even there. Characters like Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, the Emperor in the Empire Strikes Back or Maleficent are deliberately given limited or no contact with the heroes (and thus less screen time) because their position of power makes them that powerful & that contrast of power between the small band of rebels vs a powerful god, emperor or queen is deliberate & not rare. Regardless, everyone is different & obviously everyone isn't going to like the same things or think the same way.

The movie keeps putting ME into a sleep coma everytime I try to give it another chance, so I guess that's a fair point.

Well you never need to worry about insomnia. Regardless, you did miss "stuff" when you say Maleficent doesn't do much. Maleficent is the only one "throwing obstacles between our heroes goals" aside from Diablo once or twice. Again without Maleficent there would be no curse on Aurora, no evil magic, no demonic goons, no wall of thorns, no "cool-looking" dragon (in your words) for Prince Phillip to fight to the death, no need for the fairies or their magic, no dangers, no conflicts, no antagonist & the movie would be a 5minute christening. Maleficent drives the whole story even if you don't like the story.

And even IF Prince Phillip is here just to set up a bait-and-switch moment, it's more than he ever did in the original

Your sleep coma had you miss a lot of stuff, but among other things, Maleficent could not have been defeated without him and Sleeping Beauty would not have been saved.

Oh ho, I see what you did there, did the whole "copy my debate opponent to sound like a smartass" routine, nevvvvvver seen that before. I do love how you couldn't counter my King Stefan point and had to switch it to Prince Phillip

?
First, I'm puzzled why you see King Stefan getting more screen time automatically translates into a better movie regardless of Prince Phillip. Longer movies aren't always better movies & Maleficent had to have a villain. Second, pointing out another character's longer screen time is the result of other characters having less screen time is just factual, not smartass.

That he's barely known for, like, AFTERNOON. But oh sure it's true love alright, mmhmm.

We never know how many days pass or how much time they spend together after that afternoon before Aurora disappears, but more importantly it's not a documentary so saying love at first sight or true love in an afternoon doesn't exist is like saying talking mice, fairy godmothers & dragons don't exist... it's a fantasy fairy tale. That aside, yes, I find 2 teenagers having an instant love for each other better than a story of a stalker developing a love for their victim. Everyone isn't going to like the same things.

Bottom line is, I don't even like LOVE this movie or anything, I only gave it a 6.0 rating, all I'm saying is that the idea they were trying to play around with in terms of a Revenge vs. Redemption story was a lot more interesting than the straight forward blandness of the original. Give me failed ambition over successful safeness any day of the week.

Some critics have found Maleficent to be targeted to a more adult audience so I'm not surprised some adults will prefer a big budget live action 2014 movie over a 1959 animated movie with singing & dancing in it.

I've explained elsewhere why the movie Maleficent is a bad story to try to pin to redemption, but per your request I won't go there with you in this thread.

reply