you will not be satisfied if you look at it the way you are, that "Sleeping Beauty" was the truth and "Maleficent" exists solely to explain how things happened exactly as they did in the animated classic.
That's how Disney advertised it to be, isn't it? The "untold story of how Maleficent became evil"? Even at the end of the movie, they go out of their way to say THIS IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED. That actually proves my point.
Contrary to the way many are so torn, I think the original "Sleeping Beauty" and "Maleficent" actually work great together as companion pieces. They both serve a purpose:
You're right, they do both serve a purpose: Walt Disney spent eight years trying to tell a beautiful story with his own house style of animation, which cost six million that he never made back, even though Sleeping Beauty did well at the box office. Maleficent exists solely to make money on the fact that Disney's most iconic villain is in it, add the facts that they have cool special effects and Angelina Jolie. Those three things would guarantee that hoards of fans would blindly follow them and give them their money no matter what story is being told.
Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" (1959) sets a story as a fairy tale that is what people want and expect. Something juvenile, simplistic; all black and white with no shades of gray or human complexity. It also represents what type of propaganda the court would promote to preserve the legacy of the king and to save face. Also, the original makes men look better (king, and prince as a hero) and men were far more important and powerful than women in medieval times. It is perfect for a first-time look.
So not only are you being condescending regarding the original, but you are bringing male chauvinism into something where it doesn't need to be. You seem to forget that Sleeping Beauty doesn't focus on the king and prince, let alone the princess as much as it does the fairies and Maleficent, who guess what, are women! Sleeping Beauty is probably one of the greatest feminist movies of the twentieth century. I want you to consider this:
Name me a big, blockbuster, mainstream film made in the last fifty years that has:
1. A predominately female cast.
2. Where none of the main female protagonists are young or conventionally attractive (this is if you consider Aurora to be a supporting character.)
3. Where they are not sexualised in any way.
4. Where the fact that they are women is simply incidental and in no way effects their competence.
5. Where the female protagonists are working with each other rather than against each other.
Now look at how Maleficent reduced them to nothing more than *beep* buffoons who don't care for the girl they are supposed to be protecting. Heck, they make Jar Jar Binks look well developed! In Sleeping Beauty, they were brave, caring, powerful, loving and funny. They would work together to stop evil but get into fights over dress color. Here, all they did was get into arguments over REALLY stupid things and let themselves get sidetracked from keeping Aurora safe.
However, "Maleficent" teaches us what can happen when all the events are pretty much there (famous christening scene, crow, costume, spinning wheel, fairies, wall of thorns, castle looks the same, Prince Philip, dragon climax, etc.) but a story is retold either purposely misleading to rewrite history to make one side look better or how a story is inadvertently and gradually altered as it is spread from person to person.
And why does Sleeping Beauty need to have a story like that? Okay, how about this: why don't we do the same with Jafar? I'd be interested in seeing his journey leading up to how he becomes the Sultan's Royal Vizier, but let's not stop there. Let's have everyone else portrayed to be stupid *beep* like they were in Maleficent, and let's have him end up with Princess Jasmine who becomes reduced to a stupid bimbo who is unlike the outspoken character who stands for herself in the original. Oh, and let's cast one of Hollywood's hot male actors for good measure, and let's have Iago turn into the giant cobra.
This movie is perfect for adults, once you've seen "Sleeping Beauty" as a kid. It reminds us to always look for two sides to a story or what they aren't telling you, especially if it sounds too simplistic and all black and white.
Sleeping Beauty is no more than black and white than Maleficent is! Maleficent is made out to be a good person with everyone else except for Aurora being stupid or evil. Not only is that insulting, but it's lazy writing.
Fairy becomes evil and curses an innocent baby all due to a missed invitation? That is what is unbelievable.
No, what's unbelievable is the whole movie. The fact that you would dismiss something like that, as so many people do, shows that you really don't understand Maleficent as a character. She lives to cause chaos. She cursed Aurora simply to strike fear into the hearts of everyone around her. She was evil for the sake of being evil, which makes her stand out from the other Disney villains. She did the things she did in Sleeping Beauty because she CAN.
In the context of the film alone, Maleficent does the following things JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT:
* Curses a child to death at it's own christening for no reason other than not being invited.
* Spends 16 YEARS trying to find said child after her curse is countered by the good fairies' protection.
* Personally makes sure the curse is acted upon by being there and enticing Aurora on... 16 years later, don't forget.
* Waits for the fairies to arrive to personally reveal their failure and how Aurora has indeed succumbed to her curse.
* Captures and imprisons the only man capable of lifting Aurora's sleep curse. She doesn't outright kill him, but tells him she will keep him there for a 100 years until he is old and frail and then set him off to lift the curse. A much more cruel and drawn-out punishment.
* When the fairies free him, she goes all-out in an attempt to kill him, creating a forest of thorns and ultimately confronting him directly, turning herself into a dragon in an attempt to vanquish him.
Disney and company did not do all of the above with a vague motivation to allude to some unknown back story, they did it purely and simply, and demonstrably, to make her a menacing, foreboding and deeply sinister woman. In Sleeping Beauty, she is EVIL. Her name alone clearly evokes this. Walt and the team made his fairytale adaptations and practically all of his animated films with a very clear, EVIL villain presence.
This is when you are old enough to know the truth and say, "AH HA! I knew there had to be more to the story than they were telling us or feeding to the public. Now it all makes sense!"
No, that scene did not give me that impression at all. It gave us the same tired cliche of a woman getting back at a man who broke her heart. They didn't even use the curse from the original movie. They had Maleficent perform the sleeping curse with true love's kiss breaking the spell. They were so desperate to make Maleficent a heroine that they even changed the curse she put on Aurora. Even though the Star Wars prequels were bad, at least they didn't shy away from making Anakin a villain. He kills kids, tries to kill his mentor and helps commit genocide on the Jedi.
Think about how some felt when they learned there was no Santa Claus, or that Chris Columbus was far from a hero in many ways (at least his treatment toward Native Americans and those that worked for him). Growing up I saw "King Kong" and other takes that depicted gorillas as violent, angry and vicious beasts, yet then I learned they are vegetarian and the most gentle, least violent apes of all, less violent than chimps and humans.
When giving me all these real life history examples, you're forgetting one thing: Maleficent is entirely fictional, and I don't have to accept it like I do Santa Claus or Christopher Columbus or gorillas.
Again, think of it as a lesson in the danger when you only hear one side of a story or bits and pieces, especially when it is propaganda fed to the public. The character and look of Maleficent was first (and only) created by Disney and they have the right to show the other side. It would be different if another source was changing it, but Disney doesn't mess with their classics lightly or without thinking it all through. And think of all we get here that isn't explained in "Sleeping Beauty" but fits perfectly: Why she is so pissed off, why she doesn't have wings like other fairies, what the black horns are on top of her head (they are her real horns wrapped in the headdress in the costume we know her best in). And I love the in-depth look into what motivated Stefan and (as "pilotom" beautifully explained above) how fleshed out he was, as was Maleficent. The story we first knew still exists and will always (just as Santa Claus does) but this teaches us a lesson as adults on digging deeper and getting all the facts.
There is so much wrong with this paragraph I don't know where to begin! Stefan was a fleshed out character? No. He was only the way he was in the movie because the plot needed him to be. Maleficent wasn't fleshed out either, but merely watered down. The writers didn't even do enough research to see that Maleficent is actually a word that means "evil-doer"! They couldn't even choose a different name for her to have in the beginning, to change later when she DOES become evil? If you want to see a fleshed out villain, watch Regina in Once Upon A Time.
It would be different if another source was changing it, but Disney doesn't mess with their classics lightly or without thinking it all through.
This has to be the stupidest thing you have said so far. I already touched on how they did with Maleficent, but are you even aware of the sequels they made to their other classics? You know, the ones that sucked horribly and were NO way thought through? Disney is one of the most corrupt studios out there right now, and all they care about is making money. They've stopped caring about story and characters, and are more focused on big name celebrities, special effects, and better animation. I've even seen this in the good movies they've come out with; those things I mentioned should be icing on the cake.
reply
share
SWLinPHX-2
11 years ago
Wow, some of what you said makes no sense at all:
you will not be satisfied if you look at it the way you are, that "Sleeping Beauty" was the truth and "Maleficent" exists solely to explain how things happened exactly as they did in the animated classic.
That's how Disney advertised it to be, isn't it? The "untold story of how Maleficent became evil"? Even at the end of the movie, they go out of their way to say THIS IS HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED. That actually proves my point.
WTF, are you serious? No, they advertised it to be the real story and the first one as to how it was told or how you were led to believe. What part of that don't you get? Therefore, again, this is not to explain how the events in the first one came to be, but that the events in the first one were altered from the real story, which Disney claims this is.
Think about how some felt when they learned there was no Santa Claus, or that Chris Columbus was far from a hero in many ways (at least his treatment toward Native Americans and those that worked for him). Growing up I saw "King Kong" and other takes that depicted gorillas as violent, angry and vicious beasts, yet then I learned they are vegetarian and the most gentle, least violent apes of all, less violent than chimps and humans.
When giving me all these real life history examples, you're forgetting one thing: Maleficent is entirely fictional, and I don't have to accept it like I do Santa Claus or Christopher Columbus or gorillas.
Again, WTF? You "have to accept" Santa Claus? Are you high? And yes, all are examples of things we were taught or told as kids that turned out not to be true. Perfect examples.
However, as nice as I was being your tone in your response was rude and insulting so I don't care to discuss this with you. I had a different impression of you from your original post or else I never would have responded in the first place. You come off as someone who is extremely butt hurt and angry over some changes to a fairy tale, which at that degree of intensity is rather juvenile to begin with. I'll let you have the last word as I'm sure you will want to. Everyone else can read what I wrote and your tone and attitude and decide for themselves. Have a great week!
reply
share
StrongRex
11 years ago
Wow, some of what you said makes no sense at all:
What I said makes perfect sense because I have made actual arguments. You just chose to be offended.
WTF, are you serious? No, they advertised it to be the real story and the first one as to how it was told or how you were led to believe. What part of that don't you get? Therefore, again, this is not to explain how the events in the first one came to be, but that the events in the first one were altered from the real story, which Disney claims this is.
I remember Disney saying that it was parallel to Sleeping Beauty, but how can that be when it completely contradicts that movie? And before the script was even leaked, I remember them saying that this was indeed going to be Sleeping Beauty with Maleficent's point of view, but this movie wasn't it. Heck, many sources, including Linda Woolverton, are still advertising Maleficent as evil when she's clearly not!
Again, WTF? You "have to accept" Santa Claus? Are you high? And yes, all are examples of things we were taught or told as kids that turned out not to be true. Perfect examples.
No I'm not, and no they aren't. You're asking me to accept Sleeping Beauty as "not true" with those examples, and I don't have to do that because both of them are fictional pieces. Just like I don't have to accept Wicked as being canon to The Wizard of Oz, and I don't have to accept the lunacy of Love Never Dies as being canon to Phantom of the Opera. These are fictional pieces.
Santa Claus, Christopher Columbus, and gorillas have to do with real life. I know Santa Claus is not real, I know Columbus was a jerk, and I especially know, because I've researched gorillas myself, that gorillas are docile creatures. Again, REAL LIFE. You are comparing apples and oranges; if anyone is high it's you.
However, as nice as I was being your tone in your response was rude and insulting so I don't care to discuss this with you. I had a different impression of you from your original post or else I never would have responded in the first place. You come off as someone who is extremely butt hurt and angry over some changes to a fairy tale,
I apologize that I seemed rude, but I believe I was being brutally honest with you and pointing out the flaws in your argument. The way you are reacting tells me that you can't come up with another argument, and the way you are acting offended shows me you are conceding.
which at that degree of intensity is rather juvenile to begin with.
Now who's being rude? Do you realize how many people YOU are insulting with that statement? There are many fans of animation, and they hold to the same "degree of intensity" as those who say, are fans of theatre, opera, literature, sci-fi, mystery, sports, etc. Would you tell me that these people are being juvenile? Even if I don't share their interests, I wouldn't tell them they are being juvenile. But you might as well say that the people who are celebrating this movie are being juvenile, because they are just as passionate as I am. You say juvenile, I say passionate and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
I'll let you have the last word as I'm sure you will want to. Everyone else can read what I wrote and your tone and attitude and decide for themselves. Have a great week!
Likewise. Have a great week too.
reply
share
Blackjack254
10 years ago
If you want to see a fleshed out villain, watch Regina in Once Upon A Time.
Regina is the pure evil villain that you feel this film lacks. She Killed Hundreds, screwed over an entire kingdom and constantly takes delight in other people's suffering, and she has said point blank that her only regret is that she didn't get to inflict more pain than she already has (and than Snow White let her live anyway), and later in the series she reiterated that she regrets NOTHING of what she did, Not even when it was revealed right to her face that it was her mother whom she should be blaming for her lover's death and not Snow. If the writers intended her to be "Fleshed out", than they are even worse writers than Linda Woolverton. (Or more accurately, the person who came up with the story for this film)
How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.
reply
share