-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Travesty...spoiler alert
- Thread starter Marijil
- Start date
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
We are choosing to believe the "Good Guys" story in the parade.
GiveMeTheMusic
Well-Known Member
Disney can have more than one version of its own stories - Alice in Wonderland in 2010 is a totally different story than the 1951 animated classic, so in the parks, they have a choice - to represent the 1951 film's story or the 2010 film's story. One doesn't negate the other, and the same goes for Maleficent. It's a separate entity - all mentions of Sleeping Beauty in the parks don't need to be redone, and the 1959 film won't be reanimated.
Why is this so hard?
Why is this so hard?
Because its incongruous and violates whats at the heart of the "disney magic"...the story
they should stick to being disney and not try to cheapen the product to fit with the times
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
You probably shouldn't watch Once Upon a Time then...haha
That comparison is not the same - OUaT is written by the writers of Lost and was picked up by ABC (who's parent company is Disney). Maleficent is actually released by Walt Disney Pictures.
Either way, we can agree to disagree
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Would it be better if Maleficent was released by Touchstone Pictures? I can make a call.
stevehousse
Well-Known Member
Again as I stated in another Maleficent thread, this movie is the "Wicked" version of "Sleeping Beauty".
Some people love it and others don't...but I will say that my theater I work at has had sell out shows all weekend for the movie with most I the screenings ending in applause from the audiences. Not just the 1 or 2 people clapping, the whole theater!
Some people love it and others don't...but I will say that my theater I work at has had sell out shows all weekend for the movie with most I the screenings ending in applause from the audiences. Not just the 1 or 2 people clapping, the whole theater!
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
The creators of OUAT have said many times that they have to run story lines past the Disney brass not just ABC execs. They had to go up the Disney chain quite a bit to get Frozen included for next year. They had to give the whole story arc. They had to do the same for other characters as well. I'm sure Maleficent had to be okayed the same way.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Then it's a pretty stupid point, and how very predictable that you fell for it.
The point of the kiss from the princes was to WAKE UP Aurora and Snow White, and there's a deeper meaning in that awakening that...I'm not sure you're capable of grasping. Try reading a little Bruno Bettelheim, and educate yourself as to the purpose and psychological undertones of fairy tales. It might wake you up from all this modern revisionism.
I'm fine with the idea of telling the Sleeping Beauty story from Maleficent's point of view. But to rob her of her villainy is essentially to rob her of her worth. She's cool because she's so eeevvillll. Plus:
SPOILER
Once again we have the scenario - already employed, stupidly, in Oz the Great and Powerful, of how a good magic lady turned evil because she was betrayed by a man. How freaking lame is that?
Makes me wonder when we'll get the distaff side of the gimmick. I look forward to the revisionist films based on Jafar, and Stromboli, and Dr Facilier, and Scar. They were all nice guys once, no doubt, until a woman done them wrong.
Last edited:
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
The trouble is that Disney itself paired this new version of Sleeping Beauty with its original animated version in its advertising:
That's what's known as "inviting comparison".
Bottom line, some will like this new "misunderstood-villainess" version of the tale, and some won't. But for my part, I'll be very glad when Hollywood gets over its unhealthy "Wicked" fixation, and when Disney stops feeling the need to apologize for its past renditions of fairy tales. Those versions will stand the test of time far better than these uber-feminist redos.
Me, I skipped going to the movie today and went out to dinner instead. If I do decide to watch Maleficent, there's always Netflix.
Last edited:
stevehousse
Well-Known Member
170 million global total opening weekend for Maleficent! Go Disney!
Ok Andrew C and RandomPrincess....you're right, ok? If you can't let other people have their own opinion, then fine - not worth the time going back and forth.
I said twice that we can agree to disagree and if you can't take that for what it is, then it isn't worth my time. Just think about it the next time you debate something and someone doesn't see it your way.
Have a magical day!
I said twice that we can agree to disagree and if you can't take that for what it is, then it isn't worth my time. Just think about it the next time you debate something and someone doesn't see it your way.
Have a magical day!
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
No need to get so defensive. No one said you couldn't have an opinion. Just be prepared to take the heat when you make one. I have said things on here where I was given a much harder time than you were. But such is life and it is just a forum. Suck it up!
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Wow.
1. Angelina Jolie isn't abducting your children.
2. If you are that worked up over a fantasy movie that you're losing sleep...holy cow. Get a massage or take a cruise or something.This movie's existence does not diminish or negate the original animated feature. (see also: Sam Raimi's Spider-Man vs. Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man. Same thing here only with the Disney logo and none of James Garfield's stupid hair or Toby Maguire's stupid face.)
3. Why do you regret taking your 9 year old to see this? It's not like it was Full Metal Jacket or anything.
4. I don't think you have any right to say what a "true" Disney fan should or should not support.
5. This goes back to Frozen. Aurora wasn't going to be saved by some Prince Valium just showing up because he's a prince. The entire point of this movie was that Maleficent struck out in revenge against Stefan, but admitted that she was wrong and tried to make amends. When she the curse takes hold, she actually feels sorrow, and sheds tears for Aurora.
6. Stefan isn't actually "evil" if he were evil, he would have actually killed Maleficent from the get-go. He's just nuts, makes a ton of bad decisions....and unlike Maleficent, he doesn't actually own up and take responsibility, ultimately falling to a deadly combination of his own hubris and insanity.
7. Did you take issue with Sarah Silverman starring in Wreck-It Ralph?
Just because a person is known for a certain schtick, does not mean they are stuck in that role in every project they do.
George Carlin never uttered his "Seven Dirty Words" in Cars. Cheech Marin never got Tito the chihuahua smoking the world's largest joint. And Pee-Wee Herman's Captain Rex never steered Star Tours to the planet ographia IV.
216bruce
Well-Known Member
Wow.
1. Angelina Jolie isn't abducting your children.
2. If you are that worked up over a fantasy movie that you're losing sleep...holy cow. Get a massage or take a cruise or something.This movie's existence does not diminish or negate the original animated feature. (see also: Sam Raimi's Spider-Man vs. Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man. Same thing here only with the Disney logo and none of James Garfield's stupid hair or Toby Maguire's stupid face.)
3. Why do you regret taking your 9 year old to see this? It's not like it was Full Metal Jacket or anything.
4. I don't think you have any right to say what a "true" Disney fan should or should not support.
5. This goes back to Frozen. Aurora wasn't going to be saved by some Prince Valium just showing up because he's a prince. The entire point of this movie was that Maleficent struck out in revenge against Stefan, but admitted that she was wrong and tried to make amends. When she the curse takes hold, she actually feels sorrow, and sheds tears for Aurora.
6. Stefan isn't actually "evil" if he were evil, he would have actually killed Maleficent from the get-go. He's just nuts, makes a ton of bad decisions....and unlike Maleficent, he doesn't actually own up and take responsibility, ultimately falling to a deadly combination of his own hubris and insanity.
7. Did you take issue with Sarah Silverman starring in Wreck-It Ralph?
Just because a person is known for a certain schtick, does not mean they are stuck in that role in every project they do.
George Carlin never uttered his "Seven Dirty Words" in Cars. Cheech Marin never got Tito the chihuahua smoking the world's largest joint. And Pee-Wee Herman's Captain Rex never steered Star Tours to the planet ographia IV.
Agree to all points with the added- "And Gilbert Gottfried never went into his spiel from "The Aristocrats" in "Aladdin". "So Jafar, you're probably wondering where all the blood came from...."
Seriously, It's just different from "Sleeping Beauty" and that's fine. Beautiful looking film- OK, the fairies are a little creepy in miniature form. Jolie is excellent in it and it's a fresh spin on a character. It's OK to do this. It's a movie for heaven's sake and "Sleeping Beauty" and Maleficent from the animated one still exist. If you don't like change it's best to not leave the house.
Also, haters, please note- pay attention to the advertising. It wasn't warranted to be a kids movie or a "new" Sleeping Beauty. Please be warned- You will most certainly not like the new "Cinderella" either so, save your ridiculous amount of money and stay home, throw the original in the dvd player for the millionth time and enjoy it.