![]()
Well, what Wicked did has been done to death, but not nearly as much in the mainstream. I mean, we still haven't even gotten the Wicked movie yet...
I hate Maleficent, but not to an extreme degree. I just think its poorly written, poorly developed, and defangs a villain that really shouldn't be defanged since her ENTIRE appeal is just how wicked and evil she is. Why remove that?
Personally I hate the Alice in Wonderland movies far more. That film makes my blood boil just thinking about it.
Aurora has always been one of my favourite classic Princesses, despite how little she is in the movie, purely from a design standpoint. I always wanted to see a movie that gave more focus to her instead.
Maleficent gives her some focus, but does so in the form of live-action, while fitting the tightest leather pants on one of Disney's best big bads (played by an acctress I find overrated as hell).
That this movie is set to get a sequel just deflates me.
edited 31st May '18 8:33:35 PM by MrSeyker
I never watched Sleeping Beauty (and persistently got it's characters and plot mixed up with those of Snow White). It feels like one of the lesser-known Disney films. I think it barely got a mention in Kingdom Hearts which is naturally the scale I use to determine how popualr these movies are.
I'M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME!
Kind of, but it is misleading. The "issue" with Sleeping Beauty is that it had what you would call today a very troubled production. Basically Walt Disney kind of hated that only a fraction of the concept art Mary Blair did for Alice in Wonderland was actually reflected in the movie. So he put an artist instead of an animator in charge for Sleeping Beauty. That lead to all kind of problems, because said artist focussed above all on the (very detailed) background, leaving it to the animators to somehow figure out how to put characters into said background without it looking weird. And then add to this that back then, the movies were completely hand-painted, there weren't any computers or short cuts.
Long story short, the movie blew its entire budget just on the dancing scene in the forest. The production time was double as long as it was usual. And then the voice actress for Aurora managed to blow out her voice which lead somehow to them not being able to use the voice actor of Phillip for the second half of the movie because of some weird contract. It was the epitome of a trouble production and that attached to a movie project which set the bar ridiculously high in the first place.
So, yeah, Sleeping Beauty was a financial flop, but it was also one of the highest grossing movies of the year, so it was ALSO a success with the audience (though not necessarily with the critics who were moaning about Disney doing another fairy tale movie). It recouped it's losses through rereleases and home video eventually, and it ended up being the last movie Disney made which was completely hand-painted.
All this makes Sleeping Beauty unique even before we get to the actual story. It is a moving masterpiece and nobody ever will again do a movie like this (though last years Loving Vincent attempted something in this direction).
Sleeping Beauty has a somewhat slower pace which doesn't make for much of a theatrical experience, but it's great as a home video film.
As for Maleficent, I kinda liked it... even if the title character has scarcely anything to do with the one from the original film. Would've worked miles better as a Shrek-style standalone tale. Beyond that, there's really not that much to hate as opposed to ignore. It's not like it has spawned a wave of villain-focused perspective flips. Nobody's making Jafar: Arcane Arabic Adventurer Archaeologist or Shan Yu: Badass Conqueror... although Gaston: Monster Hunter might actually work.
I also like the heretofore concept for the sequel, bitter enemies mending fences and all that. That's not something seen often in films to begin with, let alone the usually black and white morality-featuring Disney fare.
WTF? As someone who has seen the movie initially on home video but was able to see it in the big screen during its last rerelease I have to dispute this claim. Just imagine how impressive it is if you sit in the seats and then suddenly Maleficent turns into a dragon...I knew it was coming and I nevertheless ended up leaning back in my seat because it was so intimidating if you see it in full seize. And all the details...honestly, a lot of the artistry is lost if you see it on TV. This is a big screen movie, everything else is like looking at the photo of an artpiece instead of the actual thing.
I recently read the Sleeping Beauty book in the A Tale of... series and it's interesting comparing it's version of Maleficent with Maleficent's version. I prefer the Maleficent version. She's soft, yes, but she feels more in-character and less angsty.
I really, really liked Maleficent, and I wish the other Disney live action films were also reimaginings and not remakes, but I can't see anywhere for the story to go.
I wasn't that bothered by Maleficent as a heroic figure. I bought her motivation against the king. What I hated was how they belittled the other fairies as deeply stupid, and didn't have Maleficent become the dragon.
Only now does it occur to me that I've never actually seen all of Sleeping Beauty and never really had any basis on which to grade this film beyond Maleficent's character in Kingdom Hearts.
I'M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME!My main issue with the movie is that it was just sort of average besides Jolie's performance. It's not the worst I've ever seen, but it's not that great either.
Part of the appeal of Maleficent is that she was bone-deep evil and delighted being so, in a spectacularly entertaining and memorable way. That was a problem to begin with; a Maleficent movie would, by default, have a Villain Protagonist, something that Disney pretty much never does. Disney's solution to this was to simply make her the hero instead, which feels like a cop-out and misses what made the original so well-liked.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Mar 9th 2019 at 2:44:49 PM
![]()
![]()
![]()
That's one of my genuine problems with the movie, honestly. And the way it does so is filled with so many bad implications. For example, the way they shoot Maleficent having her wings stolen from her is intentionally reminiscent of a woman getting roofied and violated. And then they use it as her motivation for turning evil. A lot of survivors, myself included, found it pretty tasteless even though it's trying hard to be some kind of grand gurl power statement.
The animated movie gets an unfairly bad reputation for a lot of criticisms that are pretty unfounded, like "the main character is asleep the whole time." The three good fairies and Maleficent are the actual main characters. Aurora is more a less a pawn in the battle of good vs evil, which is being fought between four middle aged women.
"In 900 years of time and space I've never met anyone who wasn't important."

Of course it was Wicked. Disney really, really wanted to get their hands on the property - but they didn't (Universal has the rights) and so they decided to imitate it.
And at this point, frankly, the whole thing seems rather unneeded. What Wicked did has been done to death since it came out. Surely we don't need to mooch off that one more time?
edited 31st May '18 2:32:22 PM by Aldo930
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."