-
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
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Applause in my theater too. Last time I experienced that was Yoda's lightsaber duel in Attack of the Clones.
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
The Star Kids already rocked the Jafar POV with Twisted. It was fantastic and quite a believable story. In fact, it is a much more realistic story that the Disney version. If they would tone down some of the language and an unhealthy fixation on 'Tiger Love", I truly believe this would play and be successful on a Broadway level.I look forward to the revisionist films based on Jafar
WildcatDen
Well-Known Member
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
I assume you knew this before you went. If so, why did you go , especially when you could have read one review and easily figured out what kind of take they were going to have in this story.
DisneyGigi
Well-Known Member
I honestly felt like expanding on the story made it better. It was a great movie, way better than a Jack Sparrow in a red Ronald McDonald wig that was Alice in Wonderland. Good effects in Alice but I am glad Lone Ranger bombed and Pirates was put on a shelf for awhile. I like Johnny Depp but I don't wanna see the same tired act in every single movie he plays in anymore. Maleficent was way better. IMO
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
excellent article about all of this from Justin Chang in Variety.
http://variety.com/2014/film/column...ils-of-the-revisionist-fairy-tale-1201204214/#
http://variety.com/2014/film/column...ils-of-the-revisionist-fairy-tale-1201204214/#
FettFan
Well-Known Member
Nail. Head. Hit.
I really wanted to see more fleshed-out supporting characters. Ultimately other than Maleficent, the only character that gets any shred of development is Diaval....so much so that I half expected him to be the one to give the magic kiss.
(Side Note--Dio was actually my favorite character in the movie, so much so that I was fearing his death in the climax battle. )
Too bad we never got any kind of development for the other characters. Stefan was quite mad, but all we're given is a hand-wave narration that he was seduced by the dark side or something because he's a Muggle.
It's like the writers got a sudden case of "Crying Darth Vader Lightsabering Children For The Hell Of It Syndrome", which is a shame because Sharlto Copley is a pretty good actor.
216bruce
Well-Known Member
So, back in the day, people griped about Disney altering books and stories, 'the classics', and creating a "Disney version" as it wasn't the truth- Beauty, Hunchback, Pocahantas, any Grimm tale, Hans Christian Anderson, etc., as it wasn't how the story was meant to be told and it was a gross distortion of a sacred classic. Now folks gripe that the same company is altering the already altered stories because they stray from the previous altered version that folks griped about that they love. Hmmm... weird.
Also, there wasn't a whole lot of character development in the original "Sleeping Beauty", "Cinderella" or "Snow White" either. They are fairy tales and intended to teach a lesson in an entertaining way. If you get anything beyond that it's a bonus.
Also, there wasn't a whole lot of character development in the original "Sleeping Beauty", "Cinderella" or "Snow White" either. They are fairy tales and intended to teach a lesson in an entertaining way. If you get anything beyond that it's a bonus.
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.
1. I was expressing an opinion immediately after seeing the movie, I thought that's what the forum was for
2. I clearly get that AJ was not abducting my children, you pointing that out to me along with the condescending, and ironic, "get a life " crap is making this personal which I don't appreciate.
3. Because I expressed an opinion, and used what I thought was appropriate hyperbole, doesn't give you the right to take a personally nasty tone
4. I understand that it was not FMJ, I'm still going with the Maleficent is a villain angle with my 9 year old, sorry..
5. It may very well go back to Frozen, don't strain yourself patting yourself on the back for that original observation, said 9 year old had the same comment in the parking lot
6. I think intelligent minds can disagree that Stefan, as portrayed in this film was in fact evil
7. I am aware about Silverman, Cheech, Carlin, Rickles...I get it, I tried to draw an analogy that probably wasn't the best..sorry, still don't think Maleficent needed the Jolie treatment, sue me...
8. I do not have the right to say what anyone should support, but I do have the right to my opinion, even if its different than yours, amazing right? In my little review I was expressing the fact that I don't think Maleficent the movie is aimed toward what I consider true Disney fans, purists, if you will
After all these years I still haven't learned to resist the temptation to put a substantive opinion on these boards that goes beyond, "What moderate should I stay at", my bad....
I get that Disney altered the classics, but now, to me, Disney versions have become classics, the fact that they are not "the truth" is pretty obvious
I'm sure i'm in the minority but I don't like the Jolie Maleficent and I don't like turning on OUAT and seeing Snow White in labor in a wheel chair....so I don't watch....should've read up on Maleficent before seeing it....I get that...had I known, I wouldn't have gone, my mistake, I really don't consider "character development" a bonus when it alters the core story to such a degree, just an opinion...let Scorcese, Coppola or Spielberg worry about character development...what's next a documentary on the dark side of Mickey Mouse? Not interested, sorry
Last edited:
mf1972
Well-Known Member
I'll be honest, it just wasn't a good movie. I knew going in it's a different story, but didn't like how it was changed around. I told my wife that it seemed to spit in the face of the original animated movie. maleficent is a villain, pure & simple. that's why I like the character.
I didn't expect them to be honest to the material it was based on, but IMO, it's a disappointment overall.
I didn't expect them to be honest to the material it was based on, but IMO, it's a disappointment overall.
mf1972
Well-Known Member
that movie was visually impressive, but wasn't a good movie either. like the Depp/Burton combo, this movie was crap.
FettFan
Well-Known Member
I once wrote a "Gritty Reboot" of Snow White back when I was 13.
Snow White was a cocktail waitress in Las Vegas, the Seven Dwarfs were an outlaw biker gang who owned the Diamond Mine Casino, and the Queen was a rival casino owner.
Oh and Grumpy was being investigated for murder by the LVPD. The victim was David Copperfield.
216bruce
Well-Known Member
Maybe I didn't make the point clear, so I'll try again. I absolutely love classic Disney- "Sleeping Beauty", "Snow White", etc. I love the simplicity of good vs. bad where the characters are easily seen as one or the other. That doesn't preclude that alternate 'takes' on them can't be made and enjoyed also. In doing those 'takes', one option is to explore the 'why' behind the character, even if the character is altered. That is a filmmaker's or storyteller's right to do so. In fact if they don't do something different with the characters, plot, setting etc., then they are just doing a total remake- which is pointless, probably dull and most certainly repetitive.
To me it just seems limiting as a fan and/or viewer to think that nothing can ever change or that all change is bad. It's just a change or a different viewpoint. The originals still exist, they are still great.
"Maleficent" is just a different spin on a character and a story. It's beautifully made and very well-crafted. Most of the objections that I see on this board is that the film is not like original and that the title character is not the same. That's obvious and not even worth debating. If you like it or not is certainly a matter of opinion which are fine. I just found the complaints ironic since in the past there was always critical moaning about altering of a classic and now there was complaining again about an alteration of an alteration.
To me it just seems limiting as a fan and/or viewer to think that nothing can ever change or that all change is bad. It's just a change or a different viewpoint. The originals still exist, they are still great.
"Maleficent" is just a different spin on a character and a story. It's beautifully made and very well-crafted. Most of the objections that I see on this board is that the film is not like original and that the title character is not the same. That's obvious and not even worth debating. If you like it or not is certainly a matter of opinion which are fine. I just found the complaints ironic since in the past there was always critical moaning about altering of a classic and now there was complaining again about an alteration of an alteration.
Skip
Well-Known Member
This film was straight up terrible, an insult to good writing and blockbuster filmmaking.
Hear me out. I'm not comparing it to 1959's Sleeping Beauty. I'm not the type of person who demands that this sort of film has to adhere to another's timeline.
Here is the thing, though: if you're going to arbitrarily change things about a beloved story, you better be doing so for a very good reason. The reason Wicked works is because even though it strays significantly from the source material, it tells a worthwhile, strong story with believable, interesting characters.Maleficent does neither of these things.
The film is horribly written with laugh-out-loud-at-how-bad-it-is dialogue, completely flat characters, and absolutely zero sense of pacing or tone. Character motivations make very little sense and pivot without reason to. Events happen inexplicably and for almost no reason. Action scenes have minimal stakes and aren't interesting to watch, and the CGI used to create them looks nasty and fake.
The one good quality of this film is Jolie, who is clearly having a ball and flexing her acting talent despite the subpar material she's been given. She's a wonder to watch, and it's shameful that the rest of the movie around her can't even begin to live up to her performance.
Hear me out. I'm not comparing it to 1959's Sleeping Beauty. I'm not the type of person who demands that this sort of film has to adhere to another's timeline.
Here is the thing, though: if you're going to arbitrarily change things about a beloved story, you better be doing so for a very good reason. The reason Wicked works is because even though it strays significantly from the source material, it tells a worthwhile, strong story with believable, interesting characters.Maleficent does neither of these things.
The film is horribly written with laugh-out-loud-at-how-bad-it-is dialogue, completely flat characters, and absolutely zero sense of pacing or tone. Character motivations make very little sense and pivot without reason to. Events happen inexplicably and for almost no reason. Action scenes have minimal stakes and aren't interesting to watch, and the CGI used to create them looks nasty and fake.
The one good quality of this film is Jolie, who is clearly having a ball and flexing her acting talent despite the subpar material she's been given. She's a wonder to watch, and it's shameful that the rest of the movie around her can't even begin to live up to her performance.
FutureCEO
Well-Known Member
I have been reading up on my fairy tales lately....I just started with the Grimm brothers, Hans Christian Anderson and Peter Pan. It's amazing how the tales are completely different, some in a good way and some in a bad way. It's amazing how short they are too.
Thrill
Well-Known Member
But it's not Disney's story. Almost none of the Disney movies are Disney's stories. They're almost all pre-existing fairy tales or myths or based on public domain literature of some kind. Even The Lion King is largely ripped out of Hamlet.
Pity that the same company that keeps extending copyright is one whose success was built on using a story out of the public domain, but this is an entirely different complaint.
216bruce
Well-Known Member
Yeah, so true. Oh, and the dialogue in them, where there is any, sounds by today's standard very stilted and false. Some folks find the this to be bad writing or laughable dialogue when transposed into the new version when it is most likely written that way in the film so to sound as how folks are used to hearing it in 'fairy-tale era' tales or at least like how old Hollywood used to do it (think "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from '39 or so).
And, yep, the stories are really, really short with almost no character exposition, or fleshing-out. So, when a new film is made or sequel/spin-off written it's to appear similar to the simplicity of a fairy-tale too. Considering what happens in these stories- dragons, transfiguration, fairies, elves, evil curses, etc., it's not too much of a suspension of disbelief when a character does something without delving into their motivation or if they suddenly 'pivot' oe do something with no explanantion.
Fairy tales are wonderful sources for films and so easy to make into them too. A basic, simple story with a few main characters and a wonderful opportunity to make your own version of.
Scrump520
Member
I completely agree Marijil. If Malecficent was not a Disney movie, I'm sure I would've enjoyed it more. However, flatly contradicting the classic under the Disney name is pretty upsetting. Excuse my slang, but Maleficent is the baddest Disney villain ever. I can get the whole "there is good in everyone" moral but like I said, Maleficent is iconic for being a villain. With that being said, I think if this was the path Disney was taking, Maleficent should've been the narrator. This way, it would seem that Maleficent was defending her side of the story. This also would've avoided Aurora seeing her own father as villain. That's another thing. King Stefan...a villain...really? I ate at King Stefan's Banquet Hall for years when I was little. Lastly PHILLIP IS AURORA'S TRUE LOVE KISS. Yes, villains can have a good side but now Phillip isn't even Aurora's true love?! Idkkk mannnnnnn......