They should have made the whole film ABOUT how she turned evil. That would have been way more compelling. The ending could have been her on her way to the celebration of Aurora's birth with epic, ominous music and a storm forming over the kingdom. Boom. You set up it to you can go buy and watch the original film.
Nicole Eckert or we could've gotten a movie about, like what NC said "It feels so good, to be so bad." Like the movie could be her just committing acts of malice and relishing it, there could've been something here.
Odd fact, the little cute toddler girl actress playing little Aurora was Angelina Jolie's daughter as the "regular" toddler actresses found Maleficent way too terrifying.
The reason why Wicked works is because it doesn't change the original story, it adds to it. Elphaba still attacks Dorthy like she did in the movie, but now the audience knows why. This movie doesn't work because they change everything to the point that Maleficant isn't the same character. You can't go back and watch sleeping beauty and think "I agree with maleficent because I understand her"
Eh, even with Wicked I still find that a little debatable. There are some things about that that I do believe contradict the Wizard of Oz, and I don’t really approve of all the things they add to it. I think the music is the best thing about it by far.
People usually don't know that Cruella deVille was a member of PETA, Jafar was secretly the Genie and dr Facilier fought racism on New Orleans. Waiting for those movies.
Vicente Ortega Rubilar You forgot to mention Hades being the least dickest of the Greek Gods for actually doing his job and Kaa the Snake being a wise mentor to Mowgli . . . oh wait, those are actually canon. Well at least the Hercules remake might do that . . . unless it ends up being an MCU film cause lets face it that’s going to happen!
I felt the biggest problem this movie had was that it wasn't willing to deal in shades of gray. In Wicked, we learn WHY Elphaba did the things she did, but she was still a flawed character. At the beginning, she's arrogant in her own way and standoffish. Her descent into wickedness is largely caused by her actions, well meaning as they might be, ultimately making the situation worse. And in the end (spoilers!), she cuts her losses and leaves Oz. Maleficent isn't willing to do any of that. Maleficent starts as a flawless character and ends as a hero. Even in the middle, she never really feels evil. The dark thorns come across as a moody teenager's room, and the curse is a temper tantrum she quickly regrets. This applies to the other characters as well. In Wicked, while there was often more going on with a character than we knew, they were still the characters we knew. Glinda is still good. The Wizard was manipulative, but not exactly malicious about it. It added depth without removing any. Again, Maleficent doesn't want any shades of gray. Aurora and Phillip get a pass, but everyone else is defined by how they can make Maleficent look good. The king becomes the real villain, and the fairies (arguably the REAL main characters in the original movie) become bumbling, unlikeable idiots. I loved Wicked, and I wouldn't mind seeing this tried with other characters. But part of what made Wicked so great was the cleverness. The way it arranged everything to show us the real story in a way that never contradicted Dorothy's own experience. Here I'm wondering why anybody would have thought the events happened like they did in the original movie in the first place. TL;DR: If you want to tell the "real" story of the villain, you can't make everything black and white.
if you want such a story see once upon a time. it told a villains tale with grey and almost perfectly. in fact in season 1-3 it was dealt with so good that it makes you wonder why Disney couldn't do it for maleficent.
The thing about Wicked is that in both the book ad the Broadway play Elphaba IS still needlessly and unjustifiably villainous to Dorothy, who is still a confused innocent who knows nothing about why Elphaba is the way she is or the horrible things going on in Oz. This movie has Maleficent being written like the Mary Sue who steals EVERY role from the original. She takes the parental role, the protective, kind caregiver role, and the hero who saves the princess role. Leaving Stefan, the fairies, and Philip with NOTHING. It's like Aurora only gets scraps of screentime and Diavol (or whatever the hell his name was) just exists to be someone to exposite to the audience Maleficent's feelings even though anyone watching the horrible movie wouldn't need it spelled out to them.
Thank you for articulating my thoughts better than I ever could. The problem I always had with this movie was that all it did was turn the villains into the heroes and the heroes into the villains. For a movie that seems to think it's a dark tale of gray and gray morality, showing us a new side to these characters that's still supposedly consistent with what we know already, it didn't really feel like it delivered on any of its promises.
9:56 That little girl is Angelina Jolie's daughter. They tried other kids, but they were all too scared by her Maleficent outfit, so they thought her daughter would make sense, since she knew who her mother was and wouldn't be scared. The More You Know.
How much do you wanna bet that the reason they cast Elle Fanning has the Aurora we know isn’t because she looks like the character from sleeping beauty but because of that sweet scene of her with the grumpy Greg house from the TV show House MD think about it who else would be able to chill out with such a grumpy villain/hero since she did it when she was younger Maybe the casting Directors either knew of her from previous work like that i.e. they’re the same casting directors from the show or they saw the episode and decided she was perfect. I mean, let’s not forget they didn’t cast her older sister, the infamous Dakota and famous Dakota Fanning but nope, they picked Elle because she’s the one who can appreciate, interesting, scripts and know how to work with interesting actors without being intimidated, or in anyway being “lessened” in her performance i.e. The idea would always be to work from her quirky and interesting, résumé to help her like the independent film about about playing the girl from Alice in Wonderland. in that weird indie film where it’s only a small stage production in any case all I know is if anybody go toe to toe with Angelina Jolie. It’s the amazing and awesome and wonderful and cool and perfect ELLE FUCKING FANNING!!!!(and, yes, I am a goddamn “simp” for her, people!!!!) Dan aka…😂🤯🥹
A good Malificent film would have been about how she rose as the mistress of evil. It could have been about how she and the three fairies used to be colleagues until she decided to embrace the dark side. Heck, the fairies could have been her juniors who once looked up to her, but once she became more power hungry they became disillusioned with her.
Or it could have been how a little girl who was once the kindest fairy in the land grew up into the mistress of all evil it would make us feel for her more
What I hated most about this movie is that they took Prince Phillip and turned him into a prop for the little screentime he had. In the original, he had a personality, he had charm and was slightly goofy at the same time. Plus unlike the others princes of the time (Charming and Snow White's prince) Phillip actually DID something to save Aurora by facing Maleficent head on. He just didn't waltz in after the big bad was defeated, he actually took out the big bad himself (well, with the fairies help, but still).
Dude, he was more of a main character in the original than Aurora was. He had more lines, more personality, more charm... he was just... fun and great... and he had a name!
Even thought nowadays the original one Is seen as too simplistic, considering how other characters like him were portayed, he was deep. Some of these comparison aren’t fair, they are like comparing the characters of He-Man and Steven Universe.
in this film Maleficent is the main character, the hero, the villain, the one that raises Aurora, the one who's kiss wakes Aurora and basically everything in the film EXCEPT she is NOT the one that turns into a dragon when that's the coolest thing she did in the original
The worst part was the bookends. At the beginning they claim that the stories about Maleficent were told to make her look bad. At the end everyone who had any problem with Maleficent is dead and the person who loves her the most is in the position with the most power. So who turned the story around to make her evil?
Spencer Haynes I think they were just breaking the 4th wall Deadpool style and telling the audience that the story of Maleficent was told wrong. Yknow through the old animation. Basically trying to re-write history
And so, Aurora, cursed by the fairy, incapable of understanding pain and suffering, started to conquer all the neighboring kingdom because she knew happiness is good and she her leading is always met with happiness and joy. And for this she was known as Aurora, the Smiling Death, and the Angel of Torment for all the land she conquered and the people she killed. And all the survivor would remember the the army of demon she commanded and her laughter after the carnage
I want to see this in a movie. If they're going to try to make Maleficent a sympathetic character, why the hell not make Sleeping Beauty a villain, for the sake of a different take on the character of course. It also helps a lot that your idea is absolutely awesome and would work wonders if put in the right hands.
Imagine Gaston being friends with Belle and getting her books to read, imagine Scar having fun with Simba and Mufasa, imagine Ursula acting as Ariel's mom since she doesn't have one. Dont those situations sound strange?
i mean in scars case with how much his nephew trusted him he could've just had simba rule as a figurehead while he reaped all the benefits putting the blame on the hyenas instead of digging himself off a avoidable cliff. gaston definitely would be a strange case towards belle/could a tiny bit see with lefou with how we don't see the townspeoples reactions or the beast confronting them for the glorified home invasion. ursula being ariel's mother figure already feels extremely uncomfortably weird with how some versions of her are ariel's aunt & how flirty her tentacles are to the little mermaid.(even more when octopus suckers are use to taste.)
It is. But they didn't forget the character's name. Diablo and Diaval both mean "demon", but in two different languages. Diablo is Spanish for demon, and if memory serves, Diaval is demon in Irish.
I'm all for Maleficent having a backstory with Aurora's parents, but making that the ENTIRE reason for her being evil was a mistake. Maleficent was far too badass to have her entire character built on angsty, adolescent heartbreak. Give her a backstory more removed from the events of Sleeping Beauty (You know, like Wicked did. The events of The Wizard of Oz only covers like 15% of the story.) Also, if you want to give her a better reason for cursing Aurora, have it be more like the Rapunzel reason or the Shrek II reason - King Stefan and his Queen can't produce an heir, Maleficent magics them one up on the condition that she gets something in return (possibly independence for her kingdom,) King and Queen don't hold up their end of the bargain, Maleficent curses Aurora. AND DON'T CHANGE THE CURSE!
Lady Marmalade Mutilation and betrayal is “angst, adolescent heartbreak”? If the person you most trusted gave you a spiked drink and you woke up missing your legs, would you accept someone calling your desire for payback “angst, adolescent heartbreak”?
As much as I love the original Maleficent, her whole reason for cursing Aurora was because she wasn't invited to her baptizing. Angsty heartbreak is still a better reason than *that.*
Shinx002 That reason at least makes sense to me, the original, as it ties to historical courtesy and guest laws; which often led to war amongst different lords when violated. Not inviting an important person, even if they never show up if they are invited, was considered an insult that could lead to war.
Nick V Hmm, true, but did she hold any noble title? I do recall Leah calling her ''your excellence'' or something among those lines, but it's never fully stated she's important. (Though, to be fair, the same could be set about the the fairies. Maybe *all* fairies are considered important. That would tie in with the original fairytale as well)
The thing I hate about this film is that it tries so hard to be Wicked without realising that Wicked focused on the past so the original story wouldn't be rewritten or ruined. This film spends about fifteen minutes on the past and drives over the original story with fifty SUVs and a monster truck.
If I would have written this movie I wouldn't have included Sleeping Beauty's plot at all, except MAYBE a hint of it at the end, like showing Maleficent just before she goes to the castle to curse the baby. The movie would have been entirely her backstory. And yes, I would have kept her evil. It's one thing to give a villain "layers" or "gray areas" or complexity and make them more three-dimensional, or to show their point of view, or even to give them a backstory that shows they weren't ALWAYS evil (and show the progression of how they became evil). For example, I think Regina on "Once Upon a Time" is a great character. Evil characters can also be redeemed, but I don't believe that's true for Maleficent. What this movie does is take a villain and re-interpret her as being a victim who was never evil at all. That just totally defeats the point of the character! It's fine to also give the "good guys" gray areas, and show that they have their own prejudices, or that everything they did wasn't perfect. But NOT to say "the good guys were really EVIL or STUPID!" It really annoys me, and it's ALSO what this movie does.
Wicked also added more depth to characters like the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Wicked Witch of the East. It didn't turn the Scarecrow or the Tin Man into incompetent, dangerous morons who Elphaba had to protect Dorothy from, and it didn't make Nessarose Elphaba's sidekick who got all her cool powers or distinctive features from the original story, like being green or flying a broom (Because Elphaba can't do any of that stuff anymore, she's GOOD! And Maleficent can't turn into a dragon anymore, she's GOOD!)
The Old Fairy was never "evil" per-se though. She was just angry at being forgotten since the rest of the fairies were invited. Fairies in Grimm stories tend to be amoral. They have no strict moral compass and can even going from extreme benevolence to extreme sadistic wickedness without their core personalities changing. Heck, the reason the fairies are invited invited in the original story was precisely to retain their good graces.
I wished the prince saved Aurora instead, at least it would have still follow the original plot. I hate how some people think that the only way there can be a strong female character in a story is when her savior’s not a male and/or she has no love interest. It’s okay to have romance or a Prince Charming figure, those factors don’t determine the woman’s strength, her own actions do. This is one of the many things the movie mucks up. Granted, “Maleficent” is a guilty pleasure of mine that I watch on rainy days, but I still can’t get over how boring and saccharine Aurora was. No matter who saved her in the end, she still would’ve been the same, dull, female side-character as before- at least they copy and pasted that part from the animated version. Disney tried too hard to make Maleficent seem like a broken character, and misused Aurora as a prop. If they did it right, she could’ve been a much more complex villain who still had a dark past, and the the audience would’ve still rooted for her. I did like the part where her wings were cut off though, it left an impact and could’ve been followed up with a well-executed emotional scene, but alas, the writers threw away that ready-and-wrapped gift that was handed to them.
4:55 Ok, well in the film's defense, the scene played to me as though he drugged her and that is why she slept through that mutilation. And I give Jolie props for the way she portrayed the scene. Not only is she in incredible physical pain, but also now she cannot even walk properly because a significant part of her body is cut away, completely changing her balance. It's like losing a leg. If only the rest of the film had had that emotion. And while others have complained that they hate the fact films so often show women turning evil because some man done them wrong, and I agree, we need to keep in mind that this was not a casual acquaintance she spent just a few weeks with. This is someone she loved deeply for years and years (I'd say at least a decade judging by their looks) who MUTILATED her and betrayed her in every way. But therin lies my problem with Stefan. He doesn't have the guts to out and out kill her while she is sleeping/drugged, but he does have the cuts to CUT AWAY PIECES OF HER BODY...which he then displays in a trophy case for years. WTF sense does that make? And the film fell apart for me from there...
The annoying thing about this film is it completely misunderstands the ‘alt-history’ genre. Like Wicked fits in the original story very well, while Maleficient directly contradicts it.
It reads (views?) like bad fanfiction, honestly: it derails multiple characters to make the preferred character look better; it provides an almost pointlessly tragic backstory to absolve a bad guy of guilt for their actions; it takes away accomplishments from some characters (the fairies counter-acting the curse) and gives them to the favored ones, even if it doesn't make sense; and it tries to top things off with a high-minded concept (that romantic love is not the only or even best "true" love) by shoe-horning said concept in regardless of whether it flows with the story as a whole, and in ways that other stories have already done comparably well or better (Frozen did the exact same twist, with better setup). Jolie nailed her performance, but the overall story is bewilderingly amateur.
It doesn't even get half the characters names right. While the King is still called Stefan and the princess is still called Aurora, the fairies have completely different names. Why change that? In the Wizard of Oz, we didn't know the Wicked Witch's name, hence why Wicked named her. It's not like it changed Glinda's name to Seraphina or something. Also, I'm pretty sure Maleficent's crow was called Diablo, not...whatever the hell his name is here.
And Disney actually tackled that same concept in their series, "Once Upon A Time," more than once, in fact, before either Frozen or this movie came out. So it was hardly a twist ending for fans of other Disney properties.
Ok so apparently Jocelyn Murillo was the mother and... I honestly don’t know what gender super killer 24 is but I’m just gonna guess they’re the father.
One of the laziest ways of writing a character you're supposed to cheer for is if you make literally all the other character either despicable, annoying, or bland.
Well, at least Angelina Jolie LOOKED the part of Maleficent. I mean, say what you want about these live-action remakes, but they've done a decent job at casting the characters so far
I don't get this whole thing with the fans though, like they were mad that this movie wasn't like the original, but they were also mad that the Beauty and the Beats remake was like the original. What do people want exactly?
Billy Barnett good storytelling, like the originals. But with a new perspective or additions so that they're not just stretching out the original movie to feature length, like with B&B and Cinderella.
Barney TheDinosaur I'm looking forward to the Jungle book one. I mean it's good, but so weird since the book disney movie knew Mowgli was human and didn't expect him to act like a wolf, so the "wolf way" shit is weird.
The whole point of Wicked was to change the perspective of hr character of Elphaba without changing her critical history. She still melts at the end, but we’re sad when it happens. Wicked was interesting because it was a story completely confined in the known history of Oz. Maleficent throws the history completely out the window; it’s much less compelling when you take away the rules and the history and retcon the old story rather than building a new and compelling story around it. Imagine how sad Maleficent’s death may have been if we were given a chance to empathize with her first, even if she still ended up just as evil. Even if she was every bit as bad in the end, the story would be compelling and tragic in watching the journey of a character go from innocent child to a twisted, miserable, truly evil adult through a combination of tragic circumstances and their own actions. But no, this movie is like revisionist history; absolving the villain of her evil deeds by saying that they never happened, instead of allowing us to understand WHY they happened. Missed opportunity.
Merlani Art In the book, she dies and nobody cares because „no one mourns the wicked“. They changed it for the musical to avoid a downer ending, but I think it would have been more powerful if she actually died.
Not only that but Wicked made Elphaba still mistreat Dorothy and still let Dorothy be the same innocent bystander she was in the original tale. They weren't scared to let her be a villain for a chunk of the tale.
...GASTON IS PERFECT FOR THIS KIND OF STORY! Think about it, Beauty and the Beast is pretty much a subversion of the traditional damsel in distress story. Just make Gaston right, give Bell Stockholm syndrome and make the Beast/Adam an asshat deserving to be a monster
Yeah, since I read the book I cannot watch Disney's Jungle Book, anymore. Bagheera asked Kaa to save Mowgli from the monkeys and Kaa hypnothised and ate half of them. Then Mowgli and Kaa become friends. How do you get from antihero and protagonist's second best buddy to comical relief villain?
I was so disappointed in this movie. Can you imagine how novel it would have been to tell a classic story from the villains perspective, while maintaining their villain status?? I mean you follow the main character only to understand, but still resent them, and rejoice when the other, good, characters triumph. It would have actually been original, and a unique take on a classic villain.
This! At the very least, they should have looked to Prince of Egypt for inspiration. Rameses is still the antagonist through and through but they make the guy so damn understandable and you really feel sorry for him. It was so hard to root for either Moses or Rameses because I could clearly understand both viewpoints. Not one of the two characters were made generic or unlikable - just pushed to do things they really weren't proud of. This one turned Mal into a saint and the king into Lord Evil McGruff! I hate this dreck!
That's what I thought the movie was going to be like when I first saw the trailer. It would have been so interesting if they'd done it that way. Instead they bent over backwards to de-villainize Maleficent, while making formerly good characters either pointlessly evil or unbearably stupid. Basically it's a bad fanfic, with Maleficent as the Mary Sue.
Seriously can you imagine if disney did this with other villians?For example,Jafar is the misunderstood good guy who loves Jasmine and wants to save her from the evil sultan and aladdin is nothing but a useless thief.Or Ursula truly cares about Ariel and king triton is the evil guy who wants to kill all humans.Which is the main problem i have with this movie.They made the villian good and made the heroes either useless or evil.
The truth is disney was just unwilling to do a movie about a villain, when they realise that maleficient was more popular than the prince or aurora, they turn her into the main character. But in their minds, they just CANNOT have a villain protagonist in a pg movie, therefore maleficient needed to be heroic and the king needed to be villainous (since he is an antagonist to her). And of course she cannot be the one to turn into a dragon because that would be too scary for children to have a protagonist that turn into a menacing creature. Let me tell you something disney, if you don't have the guts to do a movie that focus on the villain, well just don't do it. We were fine with maleficient being the antagonist and having less screen time than the heroes, she was cool and interesting because she was evil and revel into it.
You know if they thought about it as much as we did about a way to make this movie sensible then they could have easily made a movie about the 3 fairies and the turmoil they went through to raise Aurora without magic.
I know I am 4 years late but literally every studio is like this they don't want to make a movie about a villian being an actual villian. Instead they always have to be an anti-hero rather than the movie showing them be the villian because otherwise they think we the audience wouldn't like watching them when we like the villian because of how evil they are and because they are the villian
The argument that I hear from people defending these live action remakes is that it's for a new generation and to show their kids...in which case...why not show the original then? Why not show the original movie? I mean...it's been decades since Jaws was released and there are plenty of young people out there that have yet to see it. In that case, would you remake Jaws? Would you dare remake fucking Jaws? How about Back to the Future? You're gonna remake that? Aliens? Alien? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Psycho?.....oh wait....... The point is...if you want to show a classic to a new generation...then show the fucking original movie! Whatever happened to passing down old VHS tapes/DVD's/whatever to the younger generation, having them sit down in front of the TV and showing them these classics? That happened with me with the Wizard of Oz. My dad sat me down in front of the TV, popped in the VHS, and I got to watch a classic...I didn't a need fucking remake to watch a classic. Same thing with Back to the Future...I discovered that on my own and it was amazing...I wouldn't dare want it to be remade!...
Bob Tom I don’t think you have to worry about Back to the Future, I think Zemeckis said that he’d never allow a remake to happen when rumours of a fourth movie started.
Bob Tom I can definitely see where you’re coming from, but my perspective on Disney remaking their animated classics is just retelling the story in a different way because a lot of Disney’s animated classics are based on old literature or myths and legends or shit like that. Not that I think that’s the reason WHY they’re doing this (it’s obviously to make loads of money), but as long as it’s done right, I don’t really have a problem with them remaking their animated classics. The problem is though, most of them are complete crap. Granted, Cinderella was really good, Beauty and the Beast was kinda good (but disappointingly flawed) and Christopher Robin was legitimately great. But the rest rank from bad (The Jungle Book) to god awful (Alice in Wonderland). And Milli Blake, you’re right. Robert Zemeckis said himself that there will never be a Back to the Future Remake for as long as he lives. Which doesn’t surprise me because Robert Zemeckis is a true genius who doesn’t care about making so much money and should REALLY get better recognition from today’s generation instead of horrible “filmmakers” like Michael Bay and Tyler Perry.
Old doesn't mean bad, that's a mindset too many people have. Take how people moan about watching black and white films and TV shows or having to read a book more than 50 years old, and when it comes to music anything more than a few months old can be considered dated (my favourite is opera and classical so I'm practically a dinosaur to people with this mindset) Old doesn't mean bad. Old doesn't mean it needs a remake. Come up with something original.
I think the only remakes that are justified are video games, because they do age and some don't really fit modern tech/aren't available on newer hardware aside from emulation or buying used systems and as such aren't accessible. In a film's case, there's DVDs, Netflix, Hulu, etc. The only way to justify a remake of a film is if it does something unique or gives a new twist on the original source.
You know, since the movie is just called "Maleficent", I figured it'd be an origin story for the character or a prequel to Sleeping Beauty, not a remake of Sleeping Beauty with a hyper-rushed origin story stapled onto the beginning.
*Disney*- " Sleeping Beauty was one our finest classics with one our finest villains. How do we reboot it in 2014?" *Executive*- "We should make Maleficent the good guy, make the King her former love whose evil, and turn the lovable fairies into selfish idiots!" *Executive's daughter*- "Dad! That's my fan-fiction!" *Exectutive*- "Not now, Sweety. Daddy's doing business..." *Disney*- "That is brilliant! We'll get started on that idea. Walt would be proud!"
Walt Disney: WHAAAAAT?!? They turned one of my masterpieces into such pointless schlock?!? Mickey! Mickey Mouse: You rang? Walt Disney: Call Mr. Iger and tell him that Uncle Walt is coming home. Mickey Mouse: Yes, sir.
I would have loved if the movie made it clear that Maleficent was really a fae, not like tinkerbell but like Mab. Have the beautiful utopia of the faewood turn terrifying at night. Have the thief hate Maleficent because fae law requires any human caught in the woods at night to be turned into a tree, and she tried to enforce the law without any remorse. The Faewood and the kingdom come to a head and the battle happens, but the thief makes off with her wings and becomes king. They war and murder for decades until the king has a daughter. During that time, the fae think Maleficent has taken it personally and the war is not right. The fairy godmothers come to the princess' birth as a sign of peace, and Maleficent curses the daughter to death as a way to punish the thief king. After that, keep the story true to the original, but show how Maleficent's lust for vengeance has her fall from grace, all the fairies leaving the faewood as she keeps it in it's terrifying night form. Have her be tragic and understandable, but not sympathetic. She claims to fight to protect the fairies, but there's no more fairies in Faewood to protect. She claims to protect the faewood, but lets her magic twist it into a horrifying landscape of twisted trees. Finally at the end, she admits that it's always been about the revenge, assumes the form of the dragon, and kills the king before dying to Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming.
I have the same problem with this movie that I did with Suicide Squad. The characters talk about being "evil" but nothing in the movie ever substantiates their claim. I guess I get the idea that everyone is the "hero" in their own story. But the point of the villian is to show a different point of view. If your telling a story with villans then they shouldn't just be "misunderstood" they need to do actually terrible things. Look at Mecbeth or Hamlet, hell Shakespere is a great example "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Make it so that the villian once had a noble goal but lost sight of the bigger picture. Or make it so that their too far down the rabbit hole. Or their villans who just "like" doing evil stuff and do good on a whim! That would be interesting. Not this, im misundertood trope. I want the villans to take joy in their villiany. In the case of Malificant yea her backstory is fine and her motivations are okay but she never does anything truely hanious or even anything that would make the audience doubt her intentions. Or in suicide squad sheir should have been A LOT more casualties specificly from the groups doing.
Krazy Stargazer I'm fine with grey morality for heroes and villains but why change a villain that was pure evil into some attempt at normalizing a villain?
What if they made a sequel and it opens up in a Barren Wasteland and a poster of the movie get blown off a wall and it turns out this movie was a propaganda film made under Maleficents rule and the fairys have to break Sleeping Beauty and her ture love out of jail then slay her and her crow man slave?
Krazy Stargazer Suicide Squad is just a standard hero story, which doesn’t work with these characters. I think they just grabbed some cheap ass script and changed the title to something the internet said fans would like to see a movie about. Also using a major villain like the Joker as side character is always an error, not only in movies. Nobody wants CGI-stick figure as main villain, when the Joker was available. It’s just plain stupid. BUT I do ask myself, if Hollywood is just afraid to show stars like Will Smith and Angelina Jolie as real evil bastards. Maybe the charts say ...
David Gantenbein No. In Ayer's original script, they were far more villainous. When one of the soldiers tells Killer Croc that one of the Eyes of the Adversary monsters is a team member, he smashes their head and says "Not anymore." They are, pretty much dead set on devising a way of escaping from the outset and they don't even trust each other. El Diablo is the odd man out because he won't kill anybody. The Joker is far more ruthless as well. Also, his relationship with Harley Quinn is not loving either. It's an attachment between love and hate that annoys him and he is not shy about letting Harley know about it. Naturally, as a result of the undeserved thrashing of Batman v Superman, all of that was deemed "too dark" and left on the cutting room floor. Making an R-rated dark comedy about villains into a discount Guardians of the Galaxy.
I actually think that Suicidr Squad peeps ARE evil... it is just not hammered in. Croc can easily live on regural meat yet he is a cannibal by choice. Deadpool doesn't kill women and children yet has no problem killing sons, brothers, fathers. Captain Boomerang kills for greed. Harley is a sadist who laughs at death and she was putting patients through shock 'therapies'. Hell, the only one who has a redemption arc is L Diablo. The reason why Deadpool is likeable, Boomerang funny and Harley quirky, is because to be evil, you don't have to sit in a dark room cursing the bad guys under your breath all they long. Deadpool is a cool dude who compliments your car and kills you the next day without even knowing what you did to 'earn' it. Harley is the cute girl that takes you home for a good time the lets jealous Joker on you. Boomerang cracks jokes with the saleslady in the jewerly shop then kills her and steals all of it. They are not nice people, they are evil fucks.
Maleficent means "Doing evil or harm; Harmfully malicious." It doesn't mean "Oh boo-hoo! I used to be a good girl and all the men are either evil or useless. Oh, and I'm going to kiss someone I'm supposed to hate, lol!"
Disney has got to be kidding me? Why?! If that's true she was perfect in the original story, but here a person that doesn't mean to be bad because a guy broke her heart made her who she is? You know I remember I thought this would be her origin story of how she became evil: not misunderstood.
I would also like to point out, wicked doesn’t rewrite the wizard of oz story, it writes AROUND it, all the events from the original still happen, they just give you a different explanation for why they happened, maledicente takes all the badass moments from the original and makes them lame
12345 Nltsaaegcj Oh, so much this. They really should have gone and made Maleficent curse Aurora with death out of hatred for her father, then grow to rue her decision later. The last Fairy should be lightening the curse after Maleficent is gone so she never hears of it. There, fixed half the movie's motivations. Cut out the heavy-handed wing nonsense and make the king's betrayal tied to the gem pool from the beginning. Let's say that pool is really important for the magic creatures, but he wants those shiny stones for himself. So he goes to steal them to basically buy out the throne (kingdom is financially ruined, king promised his heir's hand to anyone who could pay the crushing debt or something). That way we don't paint humans as pointlessly evil or blow out an inconsequential battle in act1. Anyway, the gem pool's light is gone to the magical creatures which slowly poisons them and turns their forest to darkness. It does not just depend on Maleficent's mood. So she grows spiteful over the loss of her tree light gems (insert Silmarillion reference here) and seeing her people in decay, curses Aurora in her wrath and because she is jealous of the king's happiness because she still has feelings for him (make it less specific, though. Just something about the slightest wound killing her), but is never a brooding evil who somehow sits on her ass. Then we have Maleficent regret cursing Aurora but unable to lift the curse "Fool, you cannot ever just take it back! That's why it is called a curse! It weighs heavy on both ends..." . Then we have the Fairies not be bumbling fools but actually caring for Aurora. Nevertheless, Maleficent befriends her and mournfully watches as all she loves is bound to die and the years tick by. In the meantime she tells Aurora of the plight of her people and the gems that were stolen. The finale should be as in the animated movie, except the audience knows Makeficent is not maliciously holding Aurora's body, but out of grief and desperation clinging to her. So she turns on the prince who apparently tries to take the last ember of anything she ever loved from her. Let us say she isn't killed but gravely wounded, the prince kisses Aurora awake and they return to her father's castle where she finds the gems Maleficent told her about and returns them for a happy ending. At which point we are telling a story behind the story and not a completely different story. Something about bitterness, grief and misunderstanding leading to disaster that nobody really wanted, not a tonal mess that attempts to character assassinate everyone around Maleficent to nake her actions seem more sensible, if only by comparison.
Björn Czaia Holy hell dude, I think you actually fixed pretty much every problem of this movie, and made a really compelling idea for what it could have been instead... It's kinda sad when a random person on TH-cam can write a better story than payed Hollywood writers...
+Björn Czaia Why is it that average Joe’s like you and me can sometimes come up with outlines for movie/show plots that are 10 times better than what was actually given to us by professional writers and filmmakers?!
What made me mad about this movie the most was the way it treated Flora, Fauna, Merryweather, and Prince Philip. Growing up with this movie as a kid, I loved these characters the most (I couldn't care about Aurora, she slept through half of the movie) because while they may have been clumsy or silly they were still doing their job, and doing it well. Philip was one of my favorite Disney princes because of the struggles he went through to save Aurora (and the fact that he fought off a dragon single-handedly). So seeing how the movie had to dumb these other characters down so Maleficent could appear "complex" destroys the storyline entirely and insults the characters of the original film.
I completely agree. I did like Aurora during the screen time they did give her, but it wasn't enough. We never really got to KNOW her like we did Cinderella or Snow White. This movie did not improve on that fact, because while Aurora wasn't necessarily "destroyed" like everyone else, she didn't feel like the same character from the original at all.
My problem with Maleficent is what they did to Flora, Fauna, Merryweather and King Stephan and what they didn't do for Phillip and Aurora. When I hear complaints about the original Sleeping Beauty, they usually include three things: 1. Aurora and Phillip aren't well developed. 2. The villain isn't complex enough. 3. It is sexist. This movie not only fails to address any of these issues but actually makes them worse. I actually appreciate the originla more as a result. Aurora and Phillip aren't terribly complex characters in the original. This movie could have developed their characters beyond the handsome, brave prince and the pretty princess who fall in love at first sight. Re-watching the original, I don't really care that they aren't terribly well developed. They aren't the main characters. Aurora is the titular character but not the main character. The main characters are Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. We spend more time with them developing their characters and personalities. Each of them has a well defined personality and character. Flora is the leader. She's bossy but knows how to get the job done. Fuana is the peacemaker. She's the one who probably raised and looked after Aurora. Merryweather is my favorite because she's firey and often revealed to be the one who knows what she's doing when it comes to dressmaking and cooking. She probably made Aurora's clothes and cooked the meals. This movie takes away the faeries' individual personalities but doesn't spend that time developing Aurora and Phillip. Aurora is still pretty and happy and Phillip is still handsome and caring. While I agree that Maleficent in the original doesn't have a sob story we're party to, she is a complex villain. She's charming, she's a smooth talker, her voice can be calm and soothing one minute and then diabolical the next. Stephan, this movie's villain, isn't complex at all. He is exactly what the critics of the original Sleeping Beauty say about Maleficent. His motivations are incredibly simple. There's no shades of grey to him. And, while Sleeping Beauty made up for Maleficent's short coming with a compelling voice actress, this movie gives Stephan a funny voice. The movie could have played with good and evil with Stephan as well. There's so much potential there. While Maleficent had a magical childhood, Stephan's was plagued by hardship, starvation, and abuse. He vows that he will make a better life for himself. He falls in love with Maleficent but then learns he can become king and be rich and powerful all the rest of his days if he kills her. But he can't kill her so he cuts off her wings. He claims his crown and marries the dying king's daughter. Still feeling guilty about what he did to Maleficent, he vows to be the best ruler, husband and father he can be to make amends. Make Maleficent complex and this could be a great movie. I also balk when someone calls the original sexist. I know you say that Phillip fought the dragon single handedly but he didn't. The faeries go with him. They provide him with the sword, they help clear the forest, they help him escape Maleficent's fortress, and Flora curses the Sword of Truth to fly into Maleficent's heart. The fairies are the heroes of the original. They bring Phillip along because they need him to break the spell with true love's kiss. The original is about four powerful women fighting over this one girl's future. For being a product of the 1950s, a time when women in action films were love interests and damsels in distress, this film was way ahead of its time. It even made the heroes older, chubby women. This version puts Maleficent into tight leather pants as soon as possible. There was so much potential with this movie and it was just one missed opportunity after another.
Gosh, I can't wait to see Jafar and Aladdin drinking at the pub together or cruella de vill revealing she had a pet dog who died and that's why she collects puppies for fur coats
It’s not like there is any excuse to make puppy coats alright. More like it was slow misunderstanding and she was just rescuing the five from puppy mills and abusive owners.
you know the worst thing, Disney had a villain that could've done the Wicked route even better, Gaston, imagine, a young man who slays a savage beast and becomes the town hero, but all that praise and fame gets to his head, he becomes a spoiled man child who thinks that he deserves whatever he wants, like the prettiest woman to be his wife, it'd be a nice cautionary tale, with plenty of real world allegories
How About Captain Hook? Optimistic Lost Boy discovers Peter Pan's dark secret of killing boys who got 'too old', almost gets killed himself, rescued by Black Beard, slowly works up the ranks of pirates all the while searching for a way to stop Peter, slowly eating away at his sanity until his righteous work turns to obsession and finally into all out revenge.
Sounds better than the Pan version. BTW never saw it, hope NC reviews it this month (just checked it was made by WB and NOT Disney-still hope he reviews it though, if he didn't already).
Audrey M Eh, just watch Hook. One can never have enough Robin Williams or Dustin Hoffman. And the movie really was a damn good exploration into Hook's respect for Peter Pan as an opponent that goes beyond simple vengeance.
Y'know....they could have actually kept Maleficent written as she was and made this work, if the curse she put on Aurora was something truly horrifying. Like maybe she wove a spell so caustic and venomous, that it actually has unforeseen effects on the girl as she grows, perhaps drawing phantoms to her even though she's utterly oblivious to their influence at first. The three fairies CAN actually see how the curse transforms her, and does their best to keep a straight face about it as she grows into a young woman. As Maleficent watches on, she's forced to admit what a horrible mistake she made in her spite and anger, and is forced to continue playing her part in a story she knows has no happy ending for her. Basically just stick a littler closer to the original, throw in some freaking body-horror or Babadook elements surrounding Aurora's curse, and you get the same ending as before, but told with a much more tragic backdrop.
Had it been an antihero story focusing on Maleficent's point of view of Sleeping Beauty, I might have liked it. Though why they made Maleficent a good guy will always puzzle me.
Honestly, I went into this movie hoping for something along the lines of the climax of Kingdom Hearts 2. Maleficent could stay a regal, badass villain, but also find it in herself to be more than her grudge or her ambitions when a greater threat arises. With a Maleficent you have to do reconciliation after, not before.
I've noticed something, almost no one in this comment section knows that these stories told by Disney are also retellings of old stories themselves, and they don't exactly keep close to the source material themselves. So if you wanna complain about this movie straying so far from the original movie, you should keep in mind that the original movies stray from the original material.
Truth be told, I did LIKE this movie when it first came out, and I respected the bold steps it took. Nowadays it's mainly indifference; I wasn't a huge fan of Sleeping Beauty growing up and barely ever saw it, it was just too dull for my mind as a child, but now I appreciate the classic for what made it so magical to others. And, seeing this review, makes me appreciate the classic all the more.
9:23-11:36 I totally agree with what you said about Maleficent being turned into the good guy in this movie. She just isn’t one of those villains that can be used that way. This is why I hate these Disney remakes, they try and tell you the same story that they already nailed it at before to you, and when they do, they either have their audience divided or they make everyone ask why they just completely remade the movie with minor changes.
This is like if Harry Potter series make Voldemort a good and misunderstood person which used to hangout with harry during the school year while Dumbledore wasnt "looking"
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was disappointed with this film. Giving understanding to a character's motives doesn't necessarily mean making the character likable or even good... I think this consept could have made a good movie... could have...
“Maleficent is just misunderstood!” In the original, she legit TRIED TO MURDER A CHILD! “She’s just upset!” If the prince had failed, the ENTIRE KINGDOM WOULD HAVE DIED OF MALNUTRITION.
Iowa Class Maleficent in the original film is a nigh-omnipotent sorceress that makes Jafar and Ursula look like noobs. The curse on the princess and her overall grudge revolves around the royal parents not giving her the respect she was probably owed. I love that her motivation was so petty because it showed just how vicious and inhuman she was. Thst made her a truly great villain. Who knows, she might have just had some wine and left them all in peace to do other villainous things had the parents simply apologized for snubbing her over the years.
silverblade357 Maleficent is evil no doubt, but petty? A medieval royal christening party is nothing like a normal kid's birthday party in the modern world, it would be an important gathering of all heads of state and not inviting a member of the ruling elite would have been considered a great insult to them, basically an open provocation and refusal to acknowledge their power, and we do have historical records of medieval noblemen starting wars and dueling each other to death for far lesser insults.
Am I the only one who believes that The Nostalgia Critic is right about this entire movie? The three fairies are morons, Maleficent should NOT be an anti hero, and having Philip in this movie was a complete waste. Not to mention that stupid Frozen Logic of the love for a family member over a romantic love.
Daniel Horak Me and my cousin went to go see this in the cinema, the day before we watched the original just as a refresher. When it got to the fairies leaving Aurora outside immediately after getting her we just gave each other an exasperated look, got up and walked out. I'm surprised we lasted as long as we did to be honest, the bastardised of the fairies was the last straw though
In a movie meant to explore gray morality they...really could have done a better job than a poorly handled rape analogy. Couldn't they have given King Stefan an actual motivation beyond a rehash of Scar's "wanting to be king?"
Shayla Ballard yes! Like rather than it just being "I can't kill her... But I still want that power!", he could've gone there to save her, rather than having it be an after thought it could have been his intent to take her wings from the start, the reason he slights her is that for her sake he has maintained that she's dead, a lie which had become easy to maintain because of the conflicts that arose with the neighboring kingdom after he, a no name farm boy, took the throne!
Shayla Ballard or, you know, be faithful to the fairytale and maleficents ACTUAL name and make her scare the shit out of the fantasy world she’s in so that the King doesn’t invite her for being so infamous in the first place. Hell, this movie could have been about how she became infamous in the first place so people started to call her Maleficent and the movie ends where Sleeping Beauty starts making more people intrestred about the original fairy tale
It would have at least been of some plot relevancy for their romance to have played into him cutting off her stupid wings. Like he could have known she would have been killed by other people and he did it as a way to spare her even thought it was a breach of trust. BUUUUT no, they just had him randomly turn bad and no one ever questions it or thinks twice about it in the stupid ass movie and people think it's deep because "OMG that's, like, basically literally rape... or whatever." without noticing that the movie is just lazy and shitty.
I am waiting for a live action remake of Aladdin where Jafar has a six pack and is just a misunderstood loner who wants to overthrow the Sultan because he disagrees with his oppressive tax policy. Aladdin and the Genie are bumbling idiots who keep tripping over the magic carpet and all comedy is derived from a farting camel.
Vikram Krishnan you forgot to mention Jaffar's Bird sidekick who transforms into something worse then an emo looking teen... and that would be Gilbert Garfried!
I'm surprised they didn't have a backstory where Gaston was physically abused by his alcoholic father in the live action Beauty and the Beast or some shit like that. Tragic backstories only work when they explain why the villain is doing what they do but still doesn't justify their actions.
Dunno, I would of thought he would of had bigger things to deal with like, politics, economy, his kingdom, the people, the army, technological development, trade and especially rival powers, and this is Medieval times so he might be called up to retake the Holy Land
@@peterkrug4124 He was king of a nation and decided to insult the most powerful royal magical entity by not sending an invitation to her. Then acts macho about it. Super sized ego right there. Like a chihuahua that doesn't understand how small it is.
A sequel where the prequel was all a nightmare and that's the reason Maleficent was so evil to begin. She was already evil but she was also appalled by the fact she had a 'good' dream (nightmare) that shitty movie. This all happened while she was looking for Aurora and that's the reason why she went in person to make sure she pricked her finger on the spindle. And that's the extent of her complexity, she's evil because she's pretty vain. That explains why she was pissed she wasn't invited to the party and that's why she cursed Aurora to begin with. FYI totally patented, so you have to pay me Disney if you go that route. :P
Don't the three fairies live in Maleficent's forest as well? If that's the case, why would they actively go out to provide gifts to the new-born of the king who rules the kingdom that tried to destroy their home? Edit: At 13:50 she's on the verge of tears despite being gifted with permanent happiness.
They could potentially make Frollo more sympathetic, by showing him the way he was in the novel - a well-meaning, though strange man, who went insane because of his unrequited lust... But nah, it's Disney we're talking about.
My mom’s favorite Disney villain has always been maleficent, and sleeping beauty has always been her favorite movie, but I’m pretty sure she fell asleep about 20 minutes into this movie… And she enjoyed the Twilight movies, so I guess that tells you something. Or maybe not.
foxymetroid The thing no one understands is that there are certain villains who are the best villains of all time, simply because they love being evil. It's not for some moral reason or something. They had a choice to do good, but had much more fun watching people suffer and die due to the misery they dole out. Today's villains are all morally complex. They want to do the right thing, but go about it in the wrong way. While villains like The Joker, Maleficent, Palpatine, etc. just love being evil. To write them any other way ruins them.
I can fix this whole movie, just make it end at her entrance at Aurora's party. That way you can have a prequel with a diabolic villain, but a tragic backstory.
Yeah, honestly that works pretty well. There really isn't anything for her to do once she lays the curse besides wait for it to take effect and then guard the palace. And there isn't really much plot she can partake in during either of those unless you want to do dumb shit like this movie did. Sure, it would kind of leave the story without its ending, but we already know what the ending is, and jumping forward 16 years just for a dragon fight and Maleficent's death would be an even worse way to end things.
StormCrown That could work, as long as they would portray Stefan as sympathetic as well. Think of Professor X and Magneto. One is clearly the hero of the story while the other is clearly the villain, but you feel bad because they were really good friends. Make Maleficent study too far into dark magic while Stefan is forced to oppose her, or something. Don’t turn him into fucking Macbeth!
The "poor woman has been wronged by a man and is evil now" trope just doesn't work for Maleficent. It just doesn't. She is evil incarnate, reducing her to a weepy woman just seems so disrespectful, and 100% agaisn't everything she is. Is it really so hard to fathom that some people are just malicious at birth, and are predestined to grow into psychotic adults? Why must all female villains have a sob story? If Disney really had some balls, they would have skipped the betrayal angle, and made an origin story about a naughty little girl who loves the wicked things she does, and grows up loving it even more.
I get what you're saying about how she was origuy intended to be a 100 % evil villan, maleficent was always my favorite villaness persicely for that reason, but I don't think the angle they took reduced her character at all. It's not a "sob story", it's a rape revenge. Angelina even did an interview explaining it after the fact, the wings being taken is the symbolic rape and aurora is the child born from that rape. Maleficent overcomes her hatred and anger through the love she grows to share with aurora, and in the end is the victor over her own trauma. I was by no means a perfect t movie but I thought it was a pretty bold choice to take it in that direction, those kind of stories should be told more often. It was pretty powerful to me. Not once in the movie did she appear or act 'weak', her wings can only be taken from her because her trust is betrayed and she is drugged for the violation to take place. even after her wings are stolen she turns her pain into anger and that anger makes her even more powerful. She's so badass.
"Is it really so hard to fathom that some people are just malicious at birth, and are predestined to grow into psychotic adults?" Ok, ok, this I... this may require a bit of analysis. 1) Actually, this kind of determinism IS becoming harder to accept by people. Our understanding of how minds grow and develop make "just born evil" a more difficult proposition. 2) Evil itself is kind of a nuanced topic. As in, even in cartoonish villainy, there's degrees of it. Using Disney villains alone you can find some of them. Vindictiveness? Maleficent. Greed? Scar and Ratcliffe. Bigotry and Lust? Frollo. So if Maleficent's thing is vindictiveness, well, nobody's born vindictive. Just as nobody is born greedy or bigoted or whatever Ursula is. Now, for the purposes of a story you don't always have to show a character's root of h ow they became as they are. In Predator they didn't explain how Col. Shafer (I think that was Arnie's name...) or The Predator came to be as they are. And that's fine. The characters come in easy archetypes so that it's easier to accept that they are doing what they are doing. But presumably you can put it together they wern't born a Black Ops guy and a Diablo Comedor de Hombres. Respectively. Now, whether THIS explanation explains how Maleficent came to be is another topic, but I will weigh in. It doesnt and it shouldn't. This is, as per the premise, the REAL version of the tale. So...as such it doesn't have to end explaining the old movie, because it's trying to OVERTURN the original movie.
17:00 THIS is exactly what I have been feeling about Maleficent as a character but could never put into words. Really, when you look back at the original animated version, that scene she does in the dungeons when she is talking to Prince Phillip, making fun of the "charming fairy tale come true" that her actions have placed him in...it's just sooooo deliciously evil. I freaking ADORE that speech. The way she twists the words "love's first kiss" and "true love conquers all"... this scene is one of the things that makes her such a great villain. th-cam.com/video/5BpTCNLWdJg/w-d-xo.html
This is the Disney movie remake I'm most split on. Maleficent (on my list) is THE best Disney villain ever. She doesn't have a tragic backstory or jealousy towards a ruler to be a badass. She's evil because she is and it's terrifying because there is NO appeasing her. She curses a baby because she wasn't invited to a party. You can't get more powerfully petty than that. And she holds up as a villain from start to finish. And yet, this movie is actually a relatively good fairytale, just not associated with Sleeping Beauty. That wouldn't have fixed everything but it would have fixed most things. Secondly, the fairies. So the original Sleeping Beauty actually isn't about Aurora (I mean, she's as interesting as cardboard). It's actually about the three good fairies. Rewatch the movie and you'll realize that they're at the center of the story, not Aurora. It's their gifts that they bring, their courageous decision to take her into the woods and raise her as their own, their looking for the prince to break the spell and then breaking Phillip out of jail. And this film takes the heart of the original story and turns it into a gross CGI, high-pitched punchline and it absolutely broke my heart. Like I said, if it wasn't called Maleficent or tied in with Sleeping Beauty, it'd actually make good fairytale and a decent movie. But it is and it sucks.
“Hellfire! Darkfire! Now turkey, it’s your turn! Choose me or your pyre! Be mine or you will buuuuuuuurn!!!!!” *Frollo rolls the bowling ball into his flaming fireplace-shaped alley, and the red-robed onlookers add another successful strike to their score charts*
I saw it coming from a mile away, yet I still chuckled a bit when it arrived. Nowadays, one pretty much has to make that obvious joke whenever a giant wall is being built to keep something out. It's like a tradition.
Tekno Pathetic And he was actually a really nice person in general! I read the book and almost felt like I got mood whiplash from how I expected him to act. Reading about a character falling into insanity, knowing it and being powerless to stop it is not a fun time but an enthralling read~ Sorry, saw a hunchback comment and got excited XD
Some idiot at Disney: Hey, remember that awesome villain, Maleficent? The most evil villain in the entire Disney pantheon who proudly declares herself "the Mistress of All Evil" and cursed an innocent girl over not getting invited to a party? Let's make her a kindhearted antihero with a heart of gold who secretly loves the little girl she cursed like her own daughter. And also, let's make it so that she's only evil because some man betrayed her because that's the only reason a woman would EVER become evil! Women having agency? What's that? And while we're at it, let's add some uncomfortable rape symbolism to said betrayal, 'cause kids like rape, right? Oh, and let's take her slimy unlikable bird sidekick and turn him into an emo hunk who wants to be friends with everyone! And also, let's take the three good fairies who were the real true heroes of the story and super kind, loving and responsible guardians to Aurora and make them bumbling imbeciles who can't do anything right and nearly kill Aurora a few times. Oh and let's never have Maleficent become a dragon because pffft, who wants to see that? Some other idiot at Disney: That all sounds brilliant! Let's pour all our money into this project and hype it up as much as possible! That feeling when freaking DESCENDANTS came up with a better backstory for Maleficent.
I disagree, except for that the fairies were annoying. The last thing any story needs is a shallow villain that is pure evil by definition and with no reason. They made Maleficent a much deeper and more interesting character.
"The last thing any story needs is a shallow villain that is pure evil by definition and with no reason." Someone isn't familiar with fairy lore--evil/malevolent fairies like Maleficent didn't _need_ reasons for treating humans like crap. They were capricious little nightmares with hair-trigger tempers and extremely fragile egos. One tiny insult (like, oh I dunno, not being invited to a party), and they'd make your life an eternal living Hell. But then, I also like villains who are more complicated than that. It'd be nice to see Maleficent as such, but why suck away everything that originally made her cool to do so? That said, as shallow as SB!Maleficent was, I think she more than made up for it with her overall characterization, with all the traits NC listed in this video. Dang did she leave an impression on an entire generation of people.
I do have a mild issue with the "not inviting her to a party" thing. In the older versions of the story is was explicitly Aurora's christening. The christening was a huge deal and the human kingdom offered a massive slight to Maleficent, a being with as much clout as a human king, by inviting the other fairies but not her. It's made much worse when the king doubles down on not having invited her, so she curses a baby. It's made less obvious in more modern tellings, which doesn't work for me because it does make the character of Maleficent that much less complex.
True. Even more of a reason for Maleficent to be insulted! And it _still_ works with her motivation, as her curse on Aurora still feels a bit like disproportionate retribution, at least to me.
Hard to say. I enjoyed it more than the original, it has more of the creative strangeness of Wonderland, but the critic's reaction to it is definitely a lot lower. And, seeing as though the Critic's main complaint about the original was that it wasn't faithful to the original spirit of the book, I don't know if this means he'll hate the sequel more or less.
I believe he wanted to eliminate the 'gypsie' population (which Esmeralda was a part of), more properly called the Romani, an ethnic group that apparently originated from India.
In Wicked (The Book) Gregory MacGuire took Elphaba and had her do everything she did in the originial wizard of Oz (the hunt for the ruby slippers, the hatred of the wizard, terrorizing Dorothy and her pals) but Gregory MacGuire clued us into her motivations. So we get a character that takes the same actions but those actions are now in a different light. In the stage play they changed Elphaba to make her story about triumphing over adversity when it was really a story about seeking absolution and a father's love. This story makes the same mistake, taking the genuinely compelling "fairy who was left out" story of maleficent and turning it into a "woman scorned" tale.
I mean, at least original Phillip and Aurora have some chemistry, they have the cute dance scene and Phillip is like, a pretty enjoyable character. I remember the joke he made and he went through literal hell to save Aurora, not because they were engaged, but because he actually liked her. I took one look at floppy hair McGee live action Phillip and knew “ohhhhh, he’s being made fun of, isn’t he?” And I’m just saying, original Phillip doesn’t deserve this slander.
Yeah, but is this really the logic you're going to have a problem with in this movie? I mean.... the wings magically reattach themselves too. They clearly don't behave like real limbs.
I think he just got her super drunk, and because she'd never been drunk before her tolerance was low? I admit that I don't remember the details all that well.
Raptorus77 Either way, can’t wait to see Christopher Robin. That sounds like an interesting continuation to the Winnie the Pooh series much like Hook is for Peter Pan . . . what can I say I have a soft spot for that film plus it is definitely the best live action Peter Pan movie.
Kingdom Hearts 2 was way, way better at making Maleficent an anti-hero. Thanks Disney, one of your subsidiary properties just did your story more than 10 years back and was more convincing at it as well.
My thing with this vs. Wicked is kinda in line with what Bobsheaux said about it: Wicked worked because you didn't see the Wicked Witch often, and what Wicked did was show a certain chain of events that led to the possibility that the original Wizard of Oz happened, but the Witch was seen as evil from misunderstanding and point of view. None of the characters actively conflict with their original portrayals, we just see what Wicked portrays as *more* of them. Wicked melded with the original story and could conceivably coexist with it. All the original characters still did what they did in the Wizard of Oz. Maleficent doesn't work because they *change* the characters and the story. The King in the original was nothing but good, and Maleficent was nothing but bad. Now in the live action remake they flipped it backwards and just made Maleficent all 'Dark Is Not Evil' and Phillip 'Light Is Not Good'. They don't have very many ties to the original story outside of themes and appearance.
Uhh, hate to be that guy that corrects 5 month old comments, but i think you mean that Stefan was ''Light Is Not Good''. Phillip is the prince, Stefan is the king.
Rachel Orange I used to work at a costume store, and this movie sold a ton of costumes, it does have problems, but there is something there for people who find it I beleave. It has disney magic on it for sure. The way I think the live action alice in wonder land movie is bad but popular, with some substance to grasp for those who see it, this movie has elements of relatability and empowerment. Even if it is somewhat mis-guided.
Fun fact: Frollo was not a villain in the original novel, yet disney turned him into one of its worst. If people are so upset over changing the holy original of Sleeping Beauty, why did noone get upset over the hunchback? Maybe because they don't know the original?
Repliar of Ancient Comments I guess because the way he was written as a villain was interesting, complex and tense. With Maleficent, I'm not quite sure... I'll admit, I did kind of find her endearing when I first watched this movie, but after a while, the way they narrate her being a "hero" feels forced, I suppose.
Repliar of Ancient Comments Lindsay Ellis's video goes into pretty good detail about why Hunchback was changed. Tl,dr is that the original author had been altering it for years anyway through stageplay adaptations.
Disney Live Action Remake Month starts now!
Next week Alice Through the Looking Glass.....SEND HELP!!
Support this week's charity - campfire.org/
Channel Awesome I haven’t seen that one yet
Hewwo
Notification squad
Channel Awesome clever name for the month.
The WahMaster 👌
Channel Awesome Eh. I kinda liked it. A lot of it was stupid though. I'm talking about Maleficent.
They should have made the whole film ABOUT how she turned evil. That would have been way more compelling. The ending could have been her on her way to the celebration of Aurora's birth with epic, ominous music and a storm forming over the kingdom. Boom. You set up it to you can go buy and watch the original film.
Nicole Eckert
Finally someone understands! She was my favorite villain, this movie doesn’t do her villainy justice.
This!!
Nicole Eckert or we could've gotten a movie about, like what NC said "It feels so good, to be so bad." Like the movie could be her just committing acts of malice and relishing it, there could've been something here.
This!!!!! Way better than the crap Disney made
You fixed this movie congratulations
Odd fact, the little cute toddler girl actress playing little Aurora was Angelina Jolie's daughter as the "regular" toddler actresses found Maleficent way too terrifying.
Aww
whoa
Only her own daughter could love her.
That's pretty cute.
I thought all her children were Cambodian or something like that
Next thing you know Disney will ramake Hercules so that Hades is just a guy doing his job vhile the true villain is Hera.
...
Oh, wait... :)
In mythology, Hades is a little but of a dick, it's his job, but Zeus is a much, much, much bigger dick.
XD
Nice one :)
Actually Hades in the original mythology is one of the nicest god.
Hades is literally the nicest God in greek mythology
The reason why Wicked works is because it doesn't change the original story, it adds to it. Elphaba still attacks Dorthy like she did in the movie, but now the audience knows why. This movie doesn't work because they change everything to the point that Maleficant isn't the same character. You can't go back and watch sleeping beauty and think "I agree with maleficent because I understand her"
Yeah, it definitely could have been so much better if Maleficent stayed evil.
I literally have to separate this version of maleficent with the original in order to accept this version.
I agree! Actually the live action maleficent story is much better than sleeping beauty. But we have to agree she's better as evil villain
@@disneyvillainsfan1666 There is a difference between adding a backstory and changing the character.
Eh, even with Wicked I still find that a little debatable. There are some things about that that I do believe contradict the Wizard of Oz, and I don’t really approve of all the things they add to it. I think the music is the best thing about it by far.
Well of course the fairies are terrible parents, one of them is Umbridge.
Rosinante Donquixote point to you, that was funny.
She probably said to Aurora "As I told you before Miss Aurora. Naughty children deserve to be punished" while she was bringing her up.
Rosinante Donquixote ooooh I hate Umbridge 😠 that bitch !
Yes.. i mean is her way of punishing aurora making her carve words into her hand?
But umbridge could STILL be a better parent!
I was sorry for aurora when I discovered that
People usually don't know that Cruella deVille was a member of PETA, Jafar was secretly the Genie and dr Facilier fought racism on New Orleans. Waiting for those movies.
Vicente Ortega Rubilar I mean, jafar gets turned into one and the doctor did make deals with people regardless of race...
Fighted isn't a word. Pretty sure you meant *fought*
Vicente Ortega Rubilar You forgot to mention Hades being the least dickest of the Greek Gods for actually doing his job and Kaa the Snake being a wise mentor to Mowgli . . . oh wait, those are actually canon.
Well at least the Hercules remake might do that . . . unless it ends up being an MCU film cause lets face it that’s going to happen!
Im also waiting for the evil stepmom to be an advocate for anti-child abuse
If you actually want a Jafar in done we'll check out Starkid's "Twisted." It's funny and does not suck
I felt the biggest problem this movie had was that it wasn't willing to deal in shades of gray. In Wicked, we learn WHY Elphaba did the things she did, but she was still a flawed character. At the beginning, she's arrogant in her own way and standoffish. Her descent into wickedness is largely caused by her actions, well meaning as they might be, ultimately making the situation worse. And in the end (spoilers!), she cuts her losses and leaves Oz.
Maleficent isn't willing to do any of that. Maleficent starts as a flawless character and ends as a hero. Even in the middle, she never really feels evil. The dark thorns come across as a moody teenager's room, and the curse is a temper tantrum she quickly regrets.
This applies to the other characters as well. In Wicked, while there was often more going on with a character than we knew, they were still the characters we knew. Glinda is still good. The Wizard was manipulative, but not exactly malicious about it. It added depth without removing any.
Again, Maleficent doesn't want any shades of gray. Aurora and Phillip get a pass, but everyone else is defined by how they can make Maleficent look good. The king becomes the real villain, and the fairies (arguably the REAL main characters in the original movie) become bumbling, unlikeable idiots.
I loved Wicked, and I wouldn't mind seeing this tried with other characters. But part of what made Wicked so great was the cleverness. The way it arranged everything to show us the real story in a way that never contradicted Dorothy's own experience. Here I'm wondering why anybody would have thought the events happened like they did in the original movie in the first place.
TL;DR: If you want to tell the "real" story of the villain, you can't make everything black and white.
if you want such a story see once upon a time. it told a villains tale with grey and almost perfectly. in fact in season 1-3 it was dealt with so good that it makes you wonder why Disney couldn't do it for maleficent.
(Spoilers) doesn't help if you don't insert a line breaks dude.
The thing about Wicked is that in both the book ad the Broadway play Elphaba IS still needlessly and unjustifiably villainous to Dorothy, who is still a confused innocent who knows nothing about why Elphaba is the way she is or the horrible things going on in Oz. This movie has Maleficent being written like the Mary Sue who steals EVERY role from the original. She takes the parental role, the protective, kind caregiver role, and the hero who saves the princess role. Leaving Stefan, the fairies, and Philip with NOTHING. It's like Aurora only gets scraps of screentime and Diavol (or whatever the hell his name was) just exists to be someone to exposite to the audience Maleficent's feelings even though anyone watching the horrible movie wouldn't need it spelled out to them.
Thank you for articulating my thoughts better than I ever could. The problem I always had with this movie was that all it did was turn the villains into the heroes and the heroes into the villains. For a movie that seems to think it's a dark tale of gray and gray morality, showing us a new side to these characters that's still supposedly consistent with what we know already, it didn't really feel like it delivered on any of its promises.
I swear it would make more sense for General Grievous to team up with Obiwan to fight Palpatine than what happened in this film!
9:56
That little girl is Angelina Jolie's daughter. They tried other kids, but they were all too scared by her Maleficent outfit, so they thought her daughter would make sense, since she knew who her mother was and wouldn't be scared.
The More You Know.
How much do you wanna bet that the reason they cast Elle Fanning has the Aurora we know isn’t because she looks like the character from sleeping beauty but because of that sweet scene of her with the grumpy Greg house from the TV show House MD think about it who else would be able to chill out with such a grumpy villain/hero since she did it when she was younger Maybe the casting Directors either knew of her from previous work like that i.e. they’re the same casting directors from the show or they saw the episode and decided she was perfect. I mean, let’s not forget they didn’t cast her older sister, the infamous Dakota and famous Dakota Fanning but nope, they picked Elle because she’s the one who can appreciate, interesting, scripts and know how to work with interesting actors without being intimidated, or in anyway being “lessened” in her performance i.e. The idea would always be to work from her quirky and interesting, résumé to help her like the independent film about about playing the girl from Alice in Wonderland. in that weird indie film where it’s only a small stage production in any case all I know is if anybody go toe to toe with Angelina Jolie. It’s the amazing and awesome and wonderful and cool and perfect ELLE FUCKING FANNING!!!!(and, yes, I am a goddamn “simp” for her, people!!!!) Dan aka…😂🤯🥹
Ok
A good Malificent film would have been about how she rose as the mistress of evil. It could have been about how she and the three fairies used to be colleagues until she decided to embrace the dark side. Heck, the fairies could have been her juniors who once looked up to her, but once she became more power hungry they became disillusioned with her.
I'd watch that.
Makes sense how she was classified as a wicked godmother or something among those lines.
Or it could have been how a little girl who was once the kindest fairy in the land grew up into the mistress of all evil it would make us feel for her more
Maybe she could've wanted to be like the three good fairies and be a godmother to people but her gifts always ended up being curses.
What I hated most about this movie is that they took Prince Phillip and turned him into a prop for the little screentime he had. In the original, he had a personality, he had charm and was slightly goofy at the same time. Plus unlike the others princes of the time (Charming and Snow White's prince) Phillip actually DID something to save Aurora by facing Maleficent head on. He just didn't waltz in after the big bad was defeated, he actually took out the big bad himself (well, with the fairies help, but still).
Dude, he was more of a main character in the original than Aurora was. He had more lines, more personality, more charm... he was just... fun and great... and he had a name!
Even thought nowadays the original one Is seen as too simplistic, considering how other characters like him were portayed, he was deep.
Some of these comparison aren’t fair, they are like comparing the characters of He-Man and Steven Universe.
The actor who played him in the sequel was even worse.
@@moviemaniac9034 wait, why did they replace Brenton Thwaites?
I- uhhh… Am I the only one who didn’t like his character in the original? XD
in this film Maleficent is the main character, the hero, the villain, the one that raises Aurora, the one who's kiss wakes Aurora and basically everything in the film EXCEPT she is NOT the one that turns into a dragon when that's the coolest thing she did in the original
So what you're saying is, she plays every character in Maleficent... But Maleficent.
Caxkj0 exactly and it's.... Just odd really.
Basically she’s everything no one wants out of sleeping beauty
Scott Elder Does Maleficent even act like Maleficent from the original?
Up next: when thanos did the snap he thought the killing half the universe part was a prank. See now he's relatable
Actually... if Thanos was a Jake Paul-type “prank” youtuber he’d be so much more hateable. I’m going to go watch the movies and imagine that.
We was already relatable
Epic C 1O1 yes
שחר א. Yeah
In the comic is actually that, he just snaps to flex his powers , because he wants lady death all over him
The worst part was the bookends. At the beginning they claim that the stories about Maleficent were told to make her look bad. At the end everyone who had any problem with Maleficent is dead and the person who loves her the most is in the position with the most power. So who turned the story around to make her evil?
Mmmhh...Good question.
Maleficent 2: Maleficent screws Walt Disney over with a bad trade deal. Should explain it
Spencer Haynes I think they were just breaking the 4th wall Deadpool style and telling the audience that the story of Maleficent was told wrong. Yknow through the old animation. Basically trying to re-write history
Not your average Bear I got that from the bookends as well. The animated classic isn't the "real story" (even though it's better). This was.
Blame Walt
And so, Aurora, cursed by the fairy, incapable of understanding pain and suffering, started to conquer all the neighboring kingdom because she knew happiness is good and she her leading is always met with happiness and joy.
And for this she was known as Aurora, the Smiling Death, and the Angel of Torment for all the land she conquered and the people she killed.
And all the survivor would remember the the army of demon she commanded and her laughter after the carnage
Davide Missaglia This actually sounds awesome.
Davide Missaglia What if she was the real Maleficent all along?
I want to see this in a movie. If they're going to try to make Maleficent a sympathetic character, why the hell not make Sleeping Beauty a villain, for the sake of a different take on the character of course.
It also helps a lot that your idea is absolutely awesome and would work wonders if put in the right hands.
Fuck, that sounds like a way better remake.
this can go on...maybe Maleficent and Prince Philip could enlist the help of the Huntsman to stop Aura
Imagine Gaston being friends with Belle and getting her books to read, imagine Scar having fun with Simba and Mufasa, imagine Ursula acting as Ariel's mom since she doesn't have one. Dont those situations sound strange?
Very strange. Very strange indeed.
The scar and mufasa one sounds kinda believable to an extent. The Gaston one absolutely not. The Ursula one to an extent, too.
Admittedly, yes. Although, the Ursula one sounds a bit interesting.
i mean in scars case with how much his nephew trusted him he could've just had simba rule as a figurehead while he reaped all the benefits putting the blame on the hyenas instead of digging himself off a avoidable cliff.
gaston definitely would be a strange case towards belle/could a tiny bit see with lefou with how we don't see the townspeoples reactions or the beast confronting them for the glorified home invasion.
ursula being ariel's mother figure already feels extremely uncomfortably weird with how some versions of her are ariel's aunt & how flirty her tentacles are to the little mermaid.(even more when octopus suckers are use to taste.)
Wow this comment aged well with the new lion king movie coming out
I believe Maleficents bird was named Diablo in the original.
Wow Disney forgot d Disney
It is. But they didn't forget the character's name. Diablo and Diaval both mean "demon", but in two different languages. Diablo is Spanish for demon, and if memory serves, Diaval is demon in Irish.
I'm all for Maleficent having a backstory with Aurora's parents, but making that the ENTIRE reason for her being evil was a mistake. Maleficent was far too badass to have her entire character built on angsty, adolescent heartbreak. Give her a backstory more removed from the events of Sleeping Beauty (You know, like Wicked did. The events of The Wizard of Oz only covers like 15% of the story.) Also, if you want to give her a better reason for cursing Aurora, have it be more like the Rapunzel reason or the Shrek II reason - King Stefan and his Queen can't produce an heir, Maleficent magics them one up on the condition that she gets something in return (possibly independence for her kingdom,) King and Queen don't hold up their end of the bargain, Maleficent curses Aurora.
AND DON'T CHANGE THE CURSE!
Lady Marmalade Mutilation and betrayal is “angst, adolescent heartbreak”?
If the person you most trusted gave you a spiked drink and you woke up missing your legs, would you accept someone calling your desire for payback “angst, adolescent heartbreak”?
As much as I love the original Maleficent, her whole reason for cursing Aurora was because she wasn't invited to her baptizing.
Angsty heartbreak is still a better reason than *that.*
Shinx002 That reason at least makes sense to me, the original, as it ties to historical courtesy and guest laws; which often led to war amongst different lords when violated. Not inviting an important person, even if they never show up if they are invited, was considered an insult that could lead to war.
Nick V Hmm, true, but did she hold any noble title? I do recall Leah calling her ''your excellence'' or something among those lines, but it's never fully stated she's important. (Though, to be fair, the same could be set about the the fairies. Maybe *all* fairies are considered important. That would tie in with the original fairytale as well)
Shinx002 Given she is a powerful fairy that lives in a castle and commands an army of followers...she has multiple “powerful person” flags.
The thing I hate about this film is that it tries so hard to be Wicked without realising that Wicked focused on the past so the original story wouldn't be rewritten or ruined. This film spends about fifteen minutes on the past and drives over the original story with fifty SUVs and a monster truck.
If I would have written this movie I wouldn't have included Sleeping Beauty's plot at all, except MAYBE a hint of it at the end, like showing Maleficent just before she goes to the castle to curse the baby. The movie would have been entirely her backstory. And yes, I would have kept her evil.
It's one thing to give a villain "layers" or "gray areas" or complexity and make them more three-dimensional, or to show their point of view, or even to give them a backstory that shows they weren't ALWAYS evil (and show the progression of how they became evil). For example, I think Regina on "Once Upon a Time" is a great character. Evil characters can also be redeemed, but I don't believe that's true for Maleficent.
What this movie does is take a villain and re-interpret her as being a victim who was never evil at all. That just totally defeats the point of the character! It's fine to also give the "good guys" gray areas, and show that they have their own prejudices, or that everything they did wasn't perfect. But NOT to say "the good guys were really EVIL or STUPID!" It really annoys me, and it's ALSO what this movie does.
Wicked also added more depth to characters like the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Wicked Witch of the East. It didn't turn the Scarecrow or the Tin Man into incompetent, dangerous morons who Elphaba had to protect Dorothy from, and it didn't make Nessarose Elphaba's sidekick who got all her cool powers or distinctive features from the original story, like being green or flying a broom (Because Elphaba can't do any of that stuff anymore, she's GOOD! And Maleficent can't turn into a dragon anymore, she's GOOD!)
The Old Fairy was never "evil" per-se though. She was just angry at being forgotten since the rest of the fairies were invited. Fairies in Grimm stories tend to be amoral. They have no strict moral compass and can even going from extreme benevolence to extreme sadistic wickedness without their core personalities changing. Heck, the reason the fairies are invited invited in the original story was precisely to retain their good graces.
I wished the prince saved Aurora instead, at least it would have still follow the original plot. I hate how some people think that the only way there can be a strong female character in a story is when her savior’s not a male and/or she has no love interest. It’s okay to have romance or a Prince Charming figure, those factors don’t determine the woman’s strength, her own actions do.
This is one of the many things the movie mucks up. Granted, “Maleficent” is a guilty pleasure of mine that I watch on rainy days, but I still can’t get over how boring and saccharine Aurora was. No matter who saved her in the end, she still would’ve been the same, dull, female side-character as before- at least they copy and pasted that part from the animated version.
Disney tried too hard to make Maleficent seem like a broken character, and misused Aurora as a prop. If they did it right, she could’ve been a much more complex villain who still had a dark past, and the the audience would’ve still rooted for her. I did like the part where her wings were cut off though, it left an impact and could’ve been followed up with a well-executed emotional scene, but alas, the writers threw away that ready-and-wrapped gift that was handed to them.
4:55 Ok, well in the film's defense, the scene played to me as though he drugged her and that is why she slept through that mutilation. And I give Jolie props for the way she portrayed the scene. Not only is she in incredible physical pain, but also now she cannot even walk properly because a significant part of her body is cut away, completely changing her balance. It's like losing a leg. If only the rest of the film had had that emotion.
And while others have complained that they hate the fact films so often show women turning evil because some man done them wrong, and I agree, we need to keep in mind that this was not a casual acquaintance she spent just a few weeks with. This is someone she loved deeply for years and years (I'd say at least a decade judging by their looks) who MUTILATED her and betrayed her in every way.
But therin lies my problem with Stefan. He doesn't have the guts to out and out kill her while she is sleeping/drugged, but he does have the cuts to CUT AWAY PIECES OF HER BODY...which he then displays in a trophy case for years. WTF sense does that make? And the film fell apart for me from there...
I always knew Dolores umbridge would be a terrible parent
Everything went downhill for her after she was fired from the Ministry.
She did say she never liked children...and now I'm starting to sense a conspiracy forming, so I'm going to stop theorizing now
I thought she looked familiar.
We all did
@@Caxkj0 I thought she went to Azkaban?
The annoying thing about this film is it completely misunderstands the ‘alt-history’ genre. Like Wicked fits in the original story very well, while Maleficient directly contradicts it.
It reads (views?) like bad fanfiction, honestly: it derails multiple characters to make the preferred character look better; it provides an almost pointlessly tragic backstory to absolve a bad guy of guilt for their actions; it takes away accomplishments from some characters (the fairies counter-acting the curse) and gives them to the favored ones, even if it doesn't make sense; and it tries to top things off with a high-minded concept (that romantic love is not the only or even best "true" love) by shoe-horning said concept in regardless of whether it flows with the story as a whole, and in ways that other stories have already done comparably well or better (Frozen did the exact same twist, with better setup). Jolie nailed her performance, but the overall story is bewilderingly amateur.
It doesn't even get half the characters names right. While the King is still called Stefan and the princess is still called Aurora, the fairies have completely different names. Why change that? In the Wizard of Oz, we didn't know the Wicked Witch's name, hence why Wicked named her. It's not like it changed Glinda's name to Seraphina or something. Also, I'm pretty sure Maleficent's crow was called Diablo, not...whatever the hell his name is here.
Diaval and yes in the animated version he's called Diablo (Lord of Terror)
And Disney actually tackled that same concept in their series, "Once Upon A Time," more than once, in fact, before either Frozen or this movie came out. So it was hardly a twist ending for fans of other Disney properties.
Yes, that's exactly what I think of this movie--a big-budget poorly written fan fic.
"My horns ripped out my mother's insides at berth and then I headbutted my father on the way out."
That had me dead.
super killer 24 I fucking started laughing so hard I’m dead 💀💀
No! It had the parents dead!
Ok so apparently Jocelyn Murillo was the mother and... I honestly don’t know what gender super killer 24 is but I’m just gonna guess they’re the father.
lol
If this was the OG Maleficent I can safely say that I would buy it as he actual backstory, but only if she did that on purpose.
One of the laziest ways of writing a character you're supposed to cheer for is if you make literally all the other character either despicable, annoying, or bland.
Well, at least Angelina Jolie LOOKED the part of Maleficent. I mean, say what you want about these live-action remakes, but they've done a decent job at casting the characters so far
Ben Wasserman and a meh to terrible job at everything else (except with filming direction and set design)
TheCNotes1 Hey, The Jungle Book was amazing in comparison to its animated adaptation
I don't get this whole thing with the fans though, like they were mad that this movie wasn't like the original, but they were also mad that the Beauty and the Beats remake was like the original. What do people want exactly?
*Beast
Billy Barnett good storytelling, like the originals. But with a new perspective or additions so that they're not just stretching out the original movie to feature length, like with B&B and Cinderella.
This is a month I didn't know I wanted so badly
Barney TheDinosaur I'm looking forward to the Jungle book one. I mean it's good, but so weird since the book disney movie knew Mowgli was human and didn't expect him to act like a wolf, so the "wolf way" shit is weird.
I can't wait for his review of Pete's Dragon.
I can't wait for beauty and the Beast it was so bad
That makes two of us
Next week is Alice thought the looking glass
The whole point of Wicked was to change the perspective of hr character of Elphaba without changing her critical history. She still melts at the end, but we’re sad when it happens. Wicked was interesting because it was a story completely confined in the known history of Oz.
Maleficent throws the history completely out the window; it’s much less compelling when you take away the rules and the history and retcon the old story rather than building a new and compelling story around it. Imagine how sad Maleficent’s death may have been if we were given a chance to empathize with her first, even if she still ended up just as evil. Even if she was every bit as bad in the end, the story would be compelling and tragic in watching the journey of a character go from innocent child to a twisted, miserable, truly evil adult through a combination of tragic circumstances and their own actions. But no, this movie is like revisionist history; absolving the villain of her evil deeds by saying that they never happened, instead of allowing us to understand WHY they happened. Missed opportunity.
Merlani Art
In the book, she dies and nobody cares because „no one mourns the wicked“. They changed it for the musical to avoid a downer ending, but I think it would have been more powerful if she actually died.
Not only that but Wicked made Elphaba still mistreat Dorothy and still let Dorothy be the same innocent bystander she was in the original tale. They weren't scared to let her be a villain for a chunk of the tale.
I would have liked it much more if it were that
And then Maleficent: Mistress of Evil just got announced.
CronoSnow it’s basically Captain America Civil War if it was done terribly.
KRS Studios not really
And it’s absolute dog shit
No one stays a villain in the remakes like Gaston!
Dark Sev.
Imo, Gaston was probably the best part of the BATB remake
...GASTON IS PERFECT FOR THIS KIND OF STORY! Think about it, Beauty and the Beast is pretty much a subversion of the traditional damsel in distress story. Just make Gaston right, give Bell Stockholm syndrome and make the Beast/Adam an asshat deserving to be a monster
Dark Sev. Shere Khan and Kaa. Ofcourse, Kaa wasn't a villain in the original book.
Yeah, since I read the book I cannot watch Disney's Jungle Book, anymore. Bagheera asked Kaa to save Mowgli from the monkeys and Kaa hypnothised and ate half of them. Then Mowgli and Kaa become friends.
How do you get from antihero and protagonist's second best buddy to comical relief villain?
They could have easily taken Maleficent out of this movie and just had Gaston with evil powers.
And it'd have at least been way more entertaining.
I was so disappointed in this movie. Can you imagine how novel it would have been to tell a classic story from the villains perspective, while maintaining their villain status?? I mean you follow the main character only to understand, but still resent them, and rejoice when the other, good, characters triumph. It would have actually been original, and a unique take on a classic villain.
Yeah. That's not a bad idea.
This! At the very least, they should have looked to Prince of Egypt for inspiration. Rameses is still the antagonist through and through but they make the guy so damn understandable and you really feel sorry for him. It was so hard to root for either Moses or Rameses because I could clearly understand both viewpoints. Not one of the two characters were made generic or unlikable - just pushed to do things they really weren't proud of.
This one turned Mal into a saint and the king into Lord Evil McGruff! I hate this dreck!
That's what I thought the movie was going to be like when I first saw the trailer. It would have been so interesting if they'd done it that way. Instead they bent over backwards to de-villainize Maleficent, while making formerly good characters either pointlessly evil or unbearably stupid. Basically it's a bad fanfic, with Maleficent as the Mary Sue.
Death Note, basically?
Seriously can you imagine if disney did this with other villians?For example,Jafar is the misunderstood good guy who loves Jasmine and wants to save her from the evil sultan and aladdin is nothing but a useless thief.Or Ursula truly cares about Ariel and king triton is the evil guy who wants to kill all humans.Which is the main problem i have with this movie.They made the villian good and made the heroes either useless or evil.
Ugh.. Those fairies are so punch-worthy in this film.
Gameplay and Talk no, they're kill worthy
Well, one IS played by Imelda Stauton, who has a very punchable face thanks to her role as Umbridge.
Really ironic since I always consider the fairy godmothers from the 1959 animated film to be the show stealers of the movie.
*FAIRY GOD PARENTS?!?!*
Leah Milne no they're torture worthy
The truth is disney was just unwilling to do a movie about a villain, when they realise that maleficient was more popular than the prince or aurora, they turn her into the main character. But in their minds, they just CANNOT have a villain protagonist in a pg movie, therefore maleficient needed to be heroic and the king needed to be villainous (since he is an antagonist to her).
And of course she cannot be the one to turn into a dragon because that would be too scary for children to have a protagonist that turn into a menacing creature.
Let me tell you something disney, if you don't have the guts to do a movie that focus on the villain, well just don't do it. We were fine with maleficient being the antagonist and having less screen time than the heroes, she was cool and interesting because she was evil and revel into it.
You know if they thought about it as much as we did about a way to make this movie sensible then they could have easily made a movie about the 3 fairies and the turmoil they went through to raise Aurora without magic.
It is true Friend, I agree with every word you said
Fecking Descendants handled Maleficent better. At least give her a catchy song people can make OC animatic of!
I know I am 4 years late but literally every studio is like this they don't want to make a movie about a villian being an actual villian. Instead they always have to be an anti-hero rather than the movie showing them be the villian because otherwise they think we the audience wouldn't like watching them when we like the villian because of how evil they are and because they are the villian
The argument that I hear from people defending these live action remakes is that it's for a new generation and to show their kids...in which case...why not show the original then? Why not show the original movie? I mean...it's been decades since Jaws was released and there are plenty of young people out there that have yet to see it. In that case, would you remake Jaws? Would you dare remake fucking Jaws? How about Back to the Future? You're gonna remake that? Aliens? Alien? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Psycho?.....oh wait....... The point is...if you want to show a classic to a new generation...then show the fucking original movie! Whatever happened to passing down old VHS tapes/DVD's/whatever to the younger generation, having them sit down in front of the TV and showing them these classics? That happened with me with the Wizard of Oz. My dad sat me down in front of the TV, popped in the VHS, and I got to watch a classic...I didn't a need fucking remake to watch a classic. Same thing with Back to the Future...I discovered that on my own and it was amazing...I wouldn't dare want it to be remade!...
Bob Tom I don’t think you have to worry about Back to the Future, I think Zemeckis said that he’d never allow a remake to happen when rumours of a fourth movie started.
Bob Tom I can definitely see where you’re coming from, but my perspective on Disney remaking their animated classics is just retelling the story in a different way because a lot of Disney’s animated classics are based on old literature or myths and legends or shit like that. Not that I think that’s the reason WHY they’re doing this (it’s obviously to make loads of money), but as long as it’s done right, I don’t really have a problem with them remaking their animated classics. The problem is though, most of them are complete crap. Granted, Cinderella was really good, Beauty and the Beast was kinda good (but disappointingly flawed) and Christopher Robin was legitimately great. But the rest rank from bad (The Jungle Book) to god awful (Alice in Wonderland).
And Milli Blake, you’re right. Robert Zemeckis said himself that there will never be a Back to the Future Remake for as long as he lives. Which doesn’t surprise me because Robert Zemeckis is a true genius who doesn’t care about making so much money and should REALLY get better recognition from today’s generation instead of horrible “filmmakers” like Michael Bay and Tyler Perry.
Old doesn't mean bad, that's a mindset too many people have. Take how people moan about watching black and white films and TV shows or having to read a book more than 50 years old, and when it comes to music anything more than a few months old can be considered dated (my favourite is opera and classical so I'm practically a dinosaur to people with this mindset)
Old doesn't mean bad. Old doesn't mean it needs a remake. Come up with something original.
I think the only remakes that are justified are video games, because they do age and some don't really fit modern tech/aren't available on newer hardware aside from emulation or buying used systems and as such aren't accessible. In a film's case, there's DVDs, Netflix, Hulu, etc. The only way to justify a remake of a film is if it does something unique or gives a new twist on the original source.
Don't give Hollywood any ideas on which movies to remake next!
You know, since the movie is just called "Maleficent", I figured it'd be an origin story for the character or a prequel to Sleeping Beauty, not a remake of Sleeping Beauty with a hyper-rushed origin story stapled onto the beginning.
*Disney*- " Sleeping Beauty was one our finest classics with one our finest villains. How do we reboot it in 2014?"
*Executive*- "We should make Maleficent the good guy, make the King her former love whose evil, and turn the lovable fairies into selfish idiots!"
*Executive's daughter*- "Dad! That's my fan-fiction!"
*Exectutive*- "Not now, Sweety. Daddy's doing business..."
*Disney*- "That is brilliant! We'll get started on that idea. Walt would be proud!"
As much as I love this movie I could honestly see that happening
I actually liked this movie and I still laughed at your comment;
pure gold
Walt Disney: WHAAAAAT?!? They turned one of my masterpieces into such pointless schlock?!? Mickey!
Mickey Mouse: You rang?
Walt Disney: Call Mr. Iger and tell him that Uncle Walt is coming home.
Mickey Mouse: Yes, sir.
Chart Guys: And the chart says this is what the fans want and will guaranteed make us crap loads of money!
It hurts that this seems so legit.
Fun Fact: Most of the kids considered for young Aurora were scared of Angie except for one kid. Let's look at the credits and it's Vivian Jolie-Pitt.
I would have loved if the movie made it clear that Maleficent was really a fae, not like tinkerbell but like Mab. Have the beautiful utopia of the faewood turn terrifying at night. Have the thief hate Maleficent because fae law requires any human caught in the woods at night to be turned into a tree, and she tried to enforce the law without any remorse.
The Faewood and the kingdom come to a head and the battle happens, but the thief makes off with her wings and becomes king. They war and murder for decades until the king has a daughter. During that time, the fae think Maleficent has taken it personally and the war is not right. The fairy godmothers come to the princess' birth as a sign of peace, and Maleficent curses the daughter to death as a way to punish the thief king. After that, keep the story true to the original, but show how Maleficent's lust for vengeance has her fall from grace, all the fairies leaving the faewood as she keeps it in it's terrifying night form.
Have her be tragic and understandable, but not sympathetic. She claims to fight to protect the fairies, but there's no more fairies in Faewood to protect. She claims to protect the faewood, but lets her magic twist it into a horrifying landscape of twisted trees. Finally at the end, she admits that it's always been about the revenge, assumes the form of the dragon, and kills the king before dying to Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming.
That just might be crazy enough... *TO GET US ALL KILLED* (sorry, Spongebob reference) I like your idea more. :)
Metrion77 i really like this idea for a maleficent movie because give her reason to hate without getting ride of her evil side
Or how about a young, "odd" girl who was always mischievous and loved doing the wicked things she did and even more so as an adult?
You, sir, should write screenplays.
This is brilliant !! I'd watch the hell out of that !! I love your comment more than the entire movie wow
I have the same problem with this movie that I did with Suicide Squad. The characters talk about being "evil" but nothing in the movie ever substantiates their claim. I guess I get the idea that everyone is the "hero" in their own story. But the point of the villian is to show a different point of view.
If your telling a story with villans then they shouldn't just be "misunderstood" they need to do actually terrible things. Look at Mecbeth or Hamlet, hell Shakespere is a great example "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Make it so that the villian once had a noble goal but lost sight of the bigger picture. Or make it so that their too far down the rabbit hole. Or their villans who just "like" doing evil stuff and do good on a whim! That would be interesting.
Not this, im misundertood trope. I want the villans to take joy in their villiany. In the case of Malificant yea her backstory is fine and her motivations are okay but she never does anything truely hanious or even anything that would make the audience doubt her intentions. Or in suicide squad sheir should have been A LOT more casualties specificly from the groups doing.
Krazy Stargazer I'm fine with grey morality for heroes and villains but why change a villain that was pure evil into some attempt at normalizing a villain?
What if they made a sequel and it opens up in a Barren Wasteland and a poster of the movie get blown off a wall and it turns out this movie was a propaganda film made under Maleficents rule and the fairys have to break Sleeping Beauty and her ture love out of jail then slay her and her crow man slave?
Krazy Stargazer Suicide Squad is just a standard hero story, which doesn’t work with these characters. I think they just grabbed some cheap ass script and changed the title to something the internet said fans would like to see a movie about. Also using a major villain like the Joker as side character is always an error, not only in movies. Nobody wants CGI-stick figure as main villain, when the Joker was available. It’s just plain stupid. BUT I do ask myself, if Hollywood is just afraid to show stars like Will Smith and Angelina Jolie as real evil bastards. Maybe the charts say ...
David Gantenbein No. In Ayer's original script, they were far more villainous. When one of the soldiers tells Killer Croc that one of the Eyes of the Adversary monsters is a team member, he smashes their head and says "Not anymore." They are, pretty much dead set on devising a way of escaping from the outset and they don't even trust each other. El Diablo is the odd man out because he won't kill anybody. The Joker is far more ruthless as well. Also, his relationship with Harley Quinn is not loving either. It's an attachment between love and hate that annoys him and he is not shy about letting Harley know about it.
Naturally, as a result of the undeserved thrashing of Batman v Superman, all of that was deemed "too dark" and left on the cutting room floor. Making an R-rated dark comedy about villains into a discount Guardians of the Galaxy.
I actually think that Suicidr Squad peeps ARE evil... it is just not hammered in. Croc can easily live on regural meat yet he is a cannibal by choice. Deadpool doesn't kill women and children yet has no problem killing sons, brothers, fathers. Captain Boomerang kills for greed. Harley is a sadist who laughs at death and she was putting patients through shock 'therapies'. Hell, the only one who has a redemption arc is L Diablo.
The reason why Deadpool is likeable, Boomerang funny and Harley quirky, is because to be evil, you don't have to sit in a dark room cursing the bad guys under your breath all they long. Deadpool is a cool dude who compliments your car and kills you the next day without even knowing what you did to 'earn' it. Harley is the cute girl that takes you home for a good time the lets jealous Joker on you. Boomerang cracks jokes with the saleslady in the jewerly shop then kills her and steals all of it. They are not nice people, they are evil fucks.
Maleficent means "Doing evil or harm; Harmfully malicious."
It doesn't mean "Oh boo-hoo! I used to be a good girl and all the men are either evil or useless. Oh, and I'm going to kiss someone I'm supposed to hate, lol!"
Disney has got to be kidding me? Why?! If that's true she was perfect in the original story, but here a person that doesn't mean to be bad because a guy broke her heart made her who she is? You know I remember I thought this would be her origin story of how she became evil: not misunderstood.
Malefic-O's! They're harmfully malicious!
8:36 "Maleficent builds a wall around her kingdom. Don't worry, the humans will pay for it."
Best. Statement. In the video.
I would also like to point out, wicked doesn’t rewrite the wizard of oz story, it writes AROUND it, all the events from the original still happen, they just give you a different explanation for why they happened, maledicente takes all the badass moments from the original and makes them lame
12345 Nltsaaegcj
Oh, so much this.
They really should have gone and made Maleficent curse Aurora with death out of hatred for her father, then grow to rue her decision later.
The last Fairy should be lightening the curse after Maleficent is gone so she never hears of it.
There, fixed half the movie's motivations.
Cut out the heavy-handed wing nonsense and make the king's betrayal tied to the gem pool from the beginning. Let's say that pool is really important for the magic creatures, but he wants those shiny stones for himself. So he goes to steal them to basically buy out the throne (kingdom is financially ruined, king promised his heir's hand to anyone who could pay the crushing debt or something).
That way we don't paint humans as pointlessly evil or blow out an inconsequential battle in act1.
Anyway, the gem pool's light is gone to the magical creatures which slowly poisons them and turns their forest to darkness. It does not just depend on Maleficent's mood. So she grows spiteful over the loss of her tree light gems (insert Silmarillion reference here) and seeing her people in decay, curses Aurora in her wrath and because she is jealous of the king's happiness because she still has feelings for him (make it less specific, though. Just something about the slightest wound killing her), but is never a brooding evil who somehow sits on her ass.
Then we have Maleficent regret cursing Aurora but unable to lift the curse "Fool, you cannot ever just take it back! That's why it is called a curse! It weighs heavy on both ends..." .
Then we have the Fairies not be bumbling fools but actually caring for Aurora. Nevertheless, Maleficent befriends her and mournfully watches as all she loves is bound to die and the years tick by. In the meantime she tells Aurora of the plight of her people and the gems that were stolen.
The finale should be as in the animated movie, except the audience knows Makeficent is not maliciously holding Aurora's body, but out of grief and desperation clinging to her. So she turns on the prince who apparently tries to take the last ember of anything she ever loved from her.
Let us say she isn't killed but gravely wounded, the prince kisses Aurora awake and they return to her father's castle where she finds the gems Maleficent told her about and returns them for a happy ending.
At which point we are telling a story behind the story and not a completely different story.
Something about bitterness, grief and misunderstanding leading to disaster that nobody really wanted, not a tonal mess that attempts to character assassinate everyone around Maleficent to nake her actions seem more sensible, if only by comparison.
Björn Czaia
Holy hell dude, I think you actually fixed pretty much every problem of this movie, and made a really compelling idea for what it could have been instead... It's kinda sad when a random person on TH-cam can write a better story than payed Hollywood writers...
Björn Czaia THIS, EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS
12345 Nltsaaegcj I never read or watched wicked does that mean the wicked witch dies at the end
+Björn Czaia
Why is it that average Joe’s like you and me can sometimes come up with outlines for movie/show plots that are 10 times better than what was actually given to us by professional writers and filmmakers?!
What made me mad about this movie the most was the way it treated Flora, Fauna, Merryweather, and Prince Philip. Growing up with this movie as a kid, I loved these characters the most (I couldn't care about Aurora, she slept through half of the movie) because while they may have been clumsy or silly they were still doing their job, and doing it well. Philip was one of my favorite Disney princes because of the struggles he went through to save Aurora (and the fact that he fought off a dragon single-handedly). So seeing how the movie had to dumb these other characters down so Maleficent could appear "complex" destroys the storyline entirely and insults the characters of the original film.
I completely agree. I did like Aurora during the screen time they did give her, but it wasn't enough. We never really got to KNOW her like we did Cinderella or Snow White. This movie did not improve on that fact, because while Aurora wasn't necessarily "destroyed" like everyone else, she didn't feel like the same character from the original at all.
My problem with Maleficent is what they did to Flora, Fauna, Merryweather and King Stephan and what they didn't do for Phillip and Aurora.
When I hear complaints about the original Sleeping Beauty, they usually include three things: 1. Aurora and Phillip aren't well developed. 2. The villain isn't complex enough. 3. It is sexist. This movie not only fails to address any of these issues but actually makes them worse. I actually appreciate the originla more as a result.
Aurora and Phillip aren't terribly complex characters in the original. This movie could have developed their characters beyond the handsome, brave prince and the pretty princess who fall in love at first sight. Re-watching the original, I don't really care that they aren't terribly well developed. They aren't the main characters. Aurora is the titular character but not the main character. The main characters are Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. We spend more time with them developing their characters and personalities. Each of them has a well defined personality and character. Flora is the leader. She's bossy but knows how to get the job done. Fuana is the peacemaker. She's the one who probably raised and looked after Aurora. Merryweather is my favorite because she's firey and often revealed to be the one who knows what she's doing when it comes to dressmaking and cooking. She probably made Aurora's clothes and cooked the meals. This movie takes away the faeries' individual personalities but doesn't spend that time developing Aurora and Phillip. Aurora is still pretty and happy and Phillip is still handsome and caring.
While I agree that Maleficent in the original doesn't have a sob story we're party to, she is a complex villain. She's charming, she's a smooth talker, her voice can be calm and soothing one minute and then diabolical the next. Stephan, this movie's villain, isn't complex at all. He is exactly what the critics of the original Sleeping Beauty say about Maleficent. His motivations are incredibly simple. There's no shades of grey to him. And, while Sleeping Beauty made up for Maleficent's short coming with a compelling voice actress, this movie gives Stephan a funny voice. The movie could have played with good and evil with Stephan as well. There's so much potential there. While Maleficent had a magical childhood, Stephan's was plagued by hardship, starvation, and abuse. He vows that he will make a better life for himself. He falls in love with Maleficent but then learns he can become king and be rich and powerful all the rest of his days if he kills her. But he can't kill her so he cuts off her wings. He claims his crown and marries the dying king's daughter. Still feeling guilty about what he did to Maleficent, he vows to be the best ruler, husband and father he can be to make amends. Make Maleficent complex and this could be a great movie.
I also balk when someone calls the original sexist. I know you say that Phillip fought the dragon single handedly but he didn't. The faeries go with him. They provide him with the sword, they help clear the forest, they help him escape Maleficent's fortress, and Flora curses the Sword of Truth to fly into Maleficent's heart. The fairies are the heroes of the original. They bring Phillip along because they need him to break the spell with true love's kiss. The original is about four powerful women fighting over this one girl's future. For being a product of the 1950s, a time when women in action films were love interests and damsels in distress, this film was way ahead of its time. It even made the heroes older, chubby women. This version puts Maleficent into tight leather pants as soon as possible.
There was so much potential with this movie and it was just one missed opportunity after another.
It probably isn’t hard to hate the pixies in this movie when one of them is played by Delores Umbridge
5:33 The way he says the crows name is pure gold haha
Gosh, I can't wait to see Jafar and Aladdin drinking at the pub together or cruella de vill revealing she had a pet dog who died and that's why she collects puppies for fur coats
ScotsWizard Don't think so, they already done a 101 Dalmatians live action many years ago, check it out.
I want to see shan yu and mulan going out for some tea
ScotsWizard I’m excited to see Cinderella and the Evil Step Mother go shoe shopping. Or Tarzan and Clayton go on a hunting trip.
It’s not like there is any excuse to make puppy coats alright. More like it was slow misunderstanding and she was just rescuing the five from puppy mills and abusive owners.
I was making a joke but yes, I am aware of this live action remake with Glen Close's Hammy Performance
Wait...a Sleep-like death?
...Not a death-like sleep?
Taichi Fujisaki a sleep (so deep it's) like death. But I see your point.
you know the worst thing, Disney had a villain that could've done the Wicked route even better, Gaston, imagine, a young man who slays a savage beast and becomes the town hero, but all that praise and fame gets to his head, he becomes a spoiled man child who thinks that he deserves whatever he wants, like the prettiest woman to be his wife, it'd be a nice cautionary tale, with plenty of real world allegories
wolfmantheimpaler Hey that sounds like it could be a good movie
How About Captain Hook? Optimistic Lost Boy discovers Peter Pan's dark secret of killing boys who got 'too old', almost gets killed himself, rescued by Black Beard, slowly works up the ranks of pirates all the while searching for a way to stop Peter, slowly eating away at his sanity until his righteous work turns to obsession and finally into all out revenge.
Sounds better than the Pan version. BTW never saw it, hope NC reviews it this month (just checked it was made by WB and NOT Disney-still hope he reviews it though, if he didn't already).
Audrey M Eh, just watch Hook. One can never have enough Robin Williams or Dustin Hoffman. And the movie really was a damn good exploration into Hook's respect for Peter Pan as an opponent that goes beyond simple vengeance.
That honestly sounds like it could be a good movie!
The REAL Maleficent would call this movie Hopeless, a Disgrace to the Forces of Evil.
And she would be absolutely correct.
This could be a pretty good parody video. Someone should do it.
TheMrSugar Productions And her words to all Disney writers and Execs: "FOOLS! IDIOTS! IMBECILS!"
Y'know....they could have actually kept Maleficent written as she was and made this work, if the curse she put on Aurora was something truly horrifying. Like maybe she wove a spell so caustic and venomous, that it actually has unforeseen effects on the girl as she grows, perhaps drawing phantoms to her even though she's utterly oblivious to their influence at first. The three fairies CAN actually see how the curse transforms her, and does their best to keep a straight face about it as she grows into a young woman. As Maleficent watches on, she's forced to admit what a horrible mistake she made in her spite and anger, and is forced to continue playing her part in a story she knows has no happy ending for her. Basically just stick a littler closer to the original, throw in some freaking body-horror or Babadook elements surrounding Aurora's curse, and you get the same ending as before, but told with a much more tragic backdrop.
Had it been an antihero story focusing on Maleficent's point of view of Sleeping Beauty, I might have liked it. Though why they made Maleficent a good guy will always puzzle me.
I'm a fanfic writer... Would've been totally fine with Maleficent becoming an antihero as opposed to what we got.
Honestly, I went into this movie hoping for something along the lines of the climax of Kingdom Hearts 2. Maleficent could stay a regal, badass villain, but also find it in herself to be more than her grudge or her ambitions when a greater threat arises. With a Maleficent you have to do reconciliation after, not before.
I've noticed something, almost no one in this comment section knows that these stories told by Disney are also retellings of old stories themselves, and they don't exactly keep close to the source material themselves. So if you wanna complain about this movie straying so far from the original movie, you should keep in mind that the original movies stray from the original material.
Truth be told, I did LIKE this movie when it first came out, and I respected the bold steps it took. Nowadays it's mainly indifference; I wasn't a huge fan of Sleeping Beauty growing up and barely ever saw it, it was just too dull for my mind as a child, but now I appreciate the classic for what made it so magical to others. And, seeing this review, makes me appreciate the classic all the more.
They just wanted to ripoff Wicked.
9:23-11:36 I totally agree with what you said about Maleficent being turned into the good guy in this movie. She just isn’t one of those villains that can be used that way. This is why I hate these Disney remakes, they try and tell you the same story that they already nailed it at before to you, and when they do, they either have their audience divided or they make everyone ask why they just completely remade the movie with minor changes.
100000000000000000000000000% agreed
Karmo The Dragon Demon Thanks, man!
+Will 2139 YOUR WELCOME! :D
This is like if Harry Potter series make Voldemort a good and misunderstood person which used to hangout with harry during the school year while Dumbledore wasnt "looking"
Here is a nice little drinking game for you.
Take a shot every time those 3 fairies almost killed the baby
ΝΙΚΟΣ ΝΙΚΟΣ You’d die, instantly!
IM DEAD
Who died?
But I like my liver.
ΝΙΚΟΣ ΝΙΚΟΣ I don't drink. Alcohol is unhealthy.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was disappointed with this film. Giving understanding to a character's motives doesn't necessarily mean making the character likable or even good... I think this consept could have made a good movie... could have...
“Maleficent is just misunderstood!”
In the original, she legit TRIED TO MURDER A CHILD!
“She’s just upset!”
If the prince had failed, the ENTIRE KINGDOM WOULD HAVE DIED OF MALNUTRITION.
Iowa Class Maleficent in the original film is a nigh-omnipotent sorceress that makes Jafar and Ursula look like noobs. The curse on the princess and her overall grudge revolves around the royal parents not giving her the respect she was probably owed. I love that her motivation was so petty because it showed just how vicious and inhuman she was. Thst made her a truly great villain.
Who knows, she might have just had some wine and left them all in peace to do other villainous things had the parents simply apologized for snubbing her over the years.
But Monarchy is bad, mmkay?
silverblade357 The pettiness made her a more enjoyable villain. You hit the nail on the head
silverblade357
Maleficent is evil no doubt, but petty? A medieval royal christening party is nothing like a normal kid's birthday party in the modern world, it would be an important gathering of all heads of state and not inviting a member of the ruling elite would have been considered a great insult to them, basically an open provocation and refusal to acknowledge their power, and we do have historical records of medieval noblemen starting wars and dueling each other to death for far lesser insults.
Gertrud Bondesson Thank you. I hate when people think Maleficent is just a petty or whiny villain complaining like she wasn’t invited to a sleepover.
Am I the only one who believes that The Nostalgia Critic is right about this entire movie?
The three fairies are morons, Maleficent should NOT be an anti hero, and having Philip in this movie was a complete waste. Not to mention that stupid Frozen Logic of the love for a family member over a romantic love.
Daniel Horak Yup. Part of why I hate this movie so much
Daniel Horak Me and my cousin went to go see this in the cinema, the day before we watched the original just as a refresher. When it got to the fairies leaving Aurora outside immediately after getting her we just gave each other an exasperated look, got up and walked out. I'm surprised we lasted as long as we did to be honest, the bastardised of the fairies was the last straw though
To date, this is the only live-action Disney remake I do not feel comfortable going back to nor recommending to give a chance.
She's more anti-villain than anti-hero.
My dad didn’t even like this one. He called it boring
9:48 It doesn't help that one of the fairies is freakin Dolores Umbridge. XD
Huh, no wonder she hates children. XD
In a movie meant to explore gray morality they...really could have done a better job than a poorly handled rape analogy. Couldn't they have given King Stefan an actual motivation beyond a rehash of Scar's "wanting to be king?"
Shayla Ballard yes! Like rather than it just being "I can't kill her... But I still want that power!", he could've gone there to save her, rather than having it be an after thought it could have been his intent to take her wings from the start, the reason he slights her is that for her sake he has maintained that she's dead, a lie which had become easy to maintain because of the conflicts that arose with the neighboring kingdom after he, a no name farm boy, took the throne!
but that would take time and make it harder to want to see him die despite him still caring about Aurora's well being (craziness aside)
Shayla Ballard or, you know, be faithful to the fairytale and maleficents ACTUAL name and make her scare the shit out of the fantasy world she’s in so that the King doesn’t invite her for being so infamous in the first place. Hell, this movie could have been about how she became infamous in the first place so people started to call her Maleficent and the movie ends where Sleeping Beauty starts making more people intrestred about the original fairy tale
It would have at least been of some plot relevancy for their romance to have played into him cutting off her stupid wings. Like he could have known she would have been killed by other people and he did it as a way to spare her even thought it was a breach of trust. BUUUUT no, they just had him randomly turn bad and no one ever questions it or thinks twice about it in the stupid ass movie and people think it's deep because "OMG that's, like, basically literally rape... or whatever." without noticing that the movie is just lazy and shitty.
Nightman221k how is that rape? It’s crippling at best
I am waiting for a live action remake of Aladdin where Jafar has a six pack and is just a misunderstood loner who wants to overthrow the Sultan because he disagrees with his oppressive tax policy. Aladdin and the Genie are bumbling idiots who keep tripping over the magic carpet and all comedy is derived from a farting camel.
Vikram Krishnan you forgot to mention Jaffar's Bird sidekick who transforms into something worse then an emo looking teen... and that would be Gilbert Garfried!
I'm surprised they didn't have a backstory where Gaston was physically abused by his alcoholic father in the live action Beauty and the Beast or some shit like that. Tragic backstories only work when they explain why the villain is doing what they do but still doesn't justify their actions.
Misunderstood Jafar already exists, it is a musical called "Twisted" by Starkid. :'D
Besides the camel I think that actually sounds really entertaining.
They actually are making a live-action remake of Aladdin. I'm pretty sure they're just doing it normally though.
Why did they make Aurora's father evil?
Dunno, I would of thought he would of had bigger things to deal with like, politics, economy, his kingdom, the people, the army, technological development, trade and especially rival powers, and this is Medieval times so he might be called up to retake the Holy Land
He was a bit of an idiot in the original movie.
@@bloodcottoncandy How so?
@@peterkrug4124 He was king of a nation and decided to insult the most powerful royal magical entity by not sending an invitation to her. Then acts macho about it. Super sized ego right there. Like a chihuahua that doesn't understand how small it is.
Cause he is a white straight cis man...
Fun fact. The girl who hugs her in the movie is Angelina Jolie's real life daughter. The other toddlers were too scared to go up to her.
Ben Lutostanski I know I'd be scared shitless of Angelina Jolie as toddler... hell I still am
I mean why not? She did falsely said Brad Pitt abused their children in order to get divorce sympathy.
Aj Anaya exactly... exactly!
That's adorable. :)
Анатолий Шпалин what are you even talking about?
I hope you're ready for the sequel.
SlavjanA there going to be a sequel?!
Yep!
A sequel where the prequel was all a nightmare and that's the reason Maleficent was so evil to begin. She was already evil but she was also appalled by the fact she had a 'good' dream (nightmare) that shitty movie. This all happened while she was looking for Aurora and that's the reason why she went in person to make sure she pricked her finger on the spindle. And that's the extent of her complexity, she's evil because she's pretty vain. That explains why she was pissed she wasn't invited to the party and that's why she cursed Aurora to begin with.
FYI totally patented, so you have to pay me Disney if you go that route. :P
+SlavjanA
There's gonna be a sequel?
There's already a pre-order
Don't the three fairies live in Maleficent's forest as well? If that's the case, why would they actively go out to provide gifts to the new-born of the king who rules the kingdom that tried to destroy their home?
Edit: At 13:50 she's on the verge of tears despite being gifted with permanent happiness.
The fairies were there as representatives of the new peace between the two races.
Frollo and Quasimodo Bowling...
Now there's an image that's never going to leave my head!
"Another strike, Quasimodo! You're on FIRE!"
Omg, I’m laughing so much right now😂😂😂
They could potentially make Frollo more sympathetic, by showing him the way he was in the novel - a well-meaning, though strange man, who went insane because of his unrequited lust... But nah, it's Disney we're talking about.
@@MadTurnip just like notre dam- I mean what
My mom’s favorite Disney villain has always been maleficent, and sleeping beauty has always been her favorite movie, but I’m pretty sure she fell asleep about 20 minutes into this movie… And she enjoyed the Twilight movies, so I guess that tells you something. Or maybe not.
Shut Up, Sprinkles! That means Angelina Jolie is as threatening as a piece of drywall
+Shut Up, Sprinkles!
Dude, you have no idea how telling that is...
Christopher Robin looks promising...
( I know it's not a remake, I just mention it because it's a live-action,adaptation Disney movie.)
It's not a remake.
Because Ewan Mcgregor
Peter Capaldi (aka Twelfth Doctor) is gonna play Rabbit and Jim Cummings is playing Pooh Bear.
Pelcogo actually it is
The g rated version of ted for kids
Why can’t we let villains be villains?
Because "Evil person isn't actually evil" = "Deep".
Good question...
Cause she is a woman, she must be a hero duh
Because it's discrimination. 😂😂
foxymetroid The thing no one understands is that there are certain villains who are the best villains of all time, simply because they love being evil. It's not for some moral reason or something. They had a choice to do good, but had much more fun watching people suffer and die due to the misery they dole out. Today's villains are all morally complex. They want to do the right thing, but go about it in the wrong way. While villains like The Joker, Maleficent, Palpatine, etc. just love being evil. To write them any other way ruins them.
6:50 That's how the original story went. It would've made a lot more sense too because the third fairy's wish was for the death to simply be a coma.
13:52 wait
but isn't it
*LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO BE SAD*
wtf
I guess so
Inconsistent writing
I can fix this whole movie, just make it end at her entrance at Aurora's party. That way you can have a prequel with a diabolic villain, but a tragic backstory.
StormCrown that ist acutally pretty brilliant
Yeah, honestly that works pretty well. There really isn't anything for her to do once she lays the curse besides wait for it to take effect and then guard the palace. And there isn't really much plot she can partake in during either of those unless you want to do dumb shit like this movie did. Sure, it would kind of leave the story without its ending, but we already know what the ending is, and jumping forward 16 years just for a dragon fight and Maleficent's death would be an even worse way to end things.
So kind of like Rogue One?
That's what I assumed it would be. Why the fuck would they do it this way?
StormCrown
That could work, as long as they would portray Stefan as sympathetic as well.
Think of Professor X and Magneto. One is clearly the hero of the story while the other is clearly the villain, but you feel bad because they were really good friends.
Make Maleficent study too far into dark magic while Stefan is forced to oppose her, or something. Don’t turn him into fucking Macbeth!
The "poor woman has been wronged by a man and is evil now" trope just doesn't work for Maleficent. It just doesn't. She is evil incarnate, reducing her to a weepy woman just seems so disrespectful, and 100% agaisn't everything she is. Is it really so hard to fathom that some people are just malicious at birth, and are predestined to grow into psychotic adults? Why must all female villains have a sob story? If Disney really had some balls, they would have skipped the betrayal angle, and made an origin story about a naughty little girl who loves the wicked things she does, and grows up loving it even more.
Precisely, could you imagine if that was why Pazuzu from The Exorcist was evil?
I think your seeing something that's not there. It had nothing to do with man/women
I get what you're saying about how she was origuy intended to be a 100 % evil villan, maleficent was always my favorite villaness persicely for that reason, but I don't think the angle they took reduced her character at all. It's not a "sob story", it's a rape revenge. Angelina even did an interview explaining it after the fact, the wings being taken is the symbolic rape and aurora is the child born from that rape. Maleficent overcomes her hatred and anger through the love she grows to share with aurora, and in the end is the victor over her own trauma. I was by no means a perfect t movie but I thought it was a pretty bold choice to take it in that direction, those kind of stories should be told more often. It was pretty powerful to me. Not once in the movie did she appear or act 'weak', her wings can only be taken from her because her trust is betrayed and she is drugged for the violation to take place. even after her wings are stolen she turns her pain into anger and that anger makes her even more powerful. She's so badass.
Thuringwethil Vaire Good point.
"Is it really so hard to fathom that some people are just malicious at birth, and are predestined to grow into psychotic adults?"
Ok, ok, this I... this may require a bit of analysis.
1) Actually, this kind of determinism IS becoming harder to accept by people. Our understanding of how minds grow and develop make "just born evil" a more difficult proposition.
2) Evil itself is kind of a nuanced topic. As in, even in cartoonish villainy, there's degrees of it. Using Disney villains alone you can find some of them. Vindictiveness? Maleficent. Greed? Scar and Ratcliffe. Bigotry and Lust? Frollo.
So if Maleficent's thing is vindictiveness, well, nobody's born vindictive. Just as nobody is born greedy or bigoted or whatever Ursula is.
Now, for the purposes of a story you don't always have to show a character's root of h ow they became as they are. In Predator they didn't explain how Col. Shafer (I think that was Arnie's name...) or The Predator came to be as they are. And that's fine. The characters come in easy archetypes so that it's easier to accept that they are doing what they are doing. But presumably you can put it together they wern't born a Black Ops guy and a Diablo Comedor de Hombres. Respectively.
Now, whether THIS explanation explains how Maleficent came to be is another topic, but I will weigh in. It doesnt and it shouldn't. This is, as per the premise, the REAL version of the tale. So...as such it doesn't have to end explaining the old movie, because it's trying to OVERTURN the original movie.
17:00 THIS is exactly what I have been feeling about Maleficent as a character but could never put into words. Really, when you look back at the original animated version, that scene she does in the dungeons when she is talking to Prince Phillip, making fun of the "charming fairy tale come true" that her actions have placed him in...it's just sooooo deliciously evil. I freaking ADORE that speech. The way she twists the words "love's first kiss" and "true love conquers all"... this scene is one of the things that makes her such a great villain. th-cam.com/video/5BpTCNLWdJg/w-d-xo.html
This is the Disney movie remake I'm most split on. Maleficent (on my list) is THE best Disney villain ever. She doesn't have a tragic backstory or jealousy towards a ruler to be a badass. She's evil because she is and it's terrifying because there is NO appeasing her. She curses a baby because she wasn't invited to a party. You can't get more powerfully petty than that. And she holds up as a villain from start to finish.
And yet, this movie is actually a relatively good fairytale, just not associated with Sleeping Beauty. That wouldn't have fixed everything but it would have fixed most things.
Secondly, the fairies. So the original Sleeping Beauty actually isn't about Aurora (I mean, she's as interesting as cardboard). It's actually about the three good fairies. Rewatch the movie and you'll realize that they're at the center of the story, not Aurora. It's their gifts that they bring, their courageous decision to take her into the woods and raise her as their own, their looking for the prince to break the spell and then breaking Phillip out of jail. And this film takes the heart of the original story and turns it into a gross CGI, high-pitched punchline and it absolutely broke my heart.
Like I said, if it wasn't called Maleficent or tied in with Sleeping Beauty, it'd actually make good fairytale and a decent movie. But it is and it sucks.
I like the faries, just not here perhaps
Now we need King Stephan's Untold Story film, where we actually find out he was the good guy all along. Right? Right??
that moment when you realize kingdom hearts does a Disney character better than Disney
Leeland M this statement is completely true.
Leeland M *cough cough* KH2 Genie Jafar Boss fight *cough cough*
Yup
The moral is: You want to see a movie that makes a well known villain sympathetic? Watch Joker.
Is it wrong that I kinda want to see Frollo and Quasimodo bowling. Just light the lanes on fire and have a kick ass song.
Tey could reimagine a few Big Lebowski scenes with that setting.
Be careful what you wish for.
“Hellfire! Darkfire! Now turkey, it’s your turn! Choose me or your pyre! Be mine or you will buuuuuuuurn!!!!!”
*Frollo rolls the bowling ball into his flaming fireplace-shaped alley, and the red-robed onlookers add another successful strike to their score charts*
♪Like fire
Hellfire
Knocking down all the pinnnnns♪
Wonder if that will be like the Jafar and Aladdin Ice Skating movie and the Scar, Mufasa and Simba Road Trip film
Rooting for Maleficent who's a villain and ends up being a good person who just wants to protect her kind, seems like familiar (Descendants)
to be fair in once upon a time she is still evil
or magneto from x-men
Ironically, Descendants hinted at a 100x better backstory for her.
Adrijana Radosevic I already watched it and I'm just waiting for the reboot cause I miss him so much.
George Clooney's dying wife cheated on him, though, and I think her intentions were clear.
"So Malificent builds a wall around her Kingdom. Don't worry, the humans will pay for it". Laughed way too hard at that!
I did too
I saw it coming from a mile away, yet I still chuckled a bit when it arrived. Nowadays, one pretty much has to make that obvious joke whenever a giant wall is being built to keep something out. It's like a tradition.
Non partisan, just funny as hell
So what you're telling me is that Aurora is Gohan and maleficent is piccolo
Yep, in a way, except Piccolo and Gohan are good characters
That jokes ironic cause in the books Frollo really did love Quasimodo
Tekno Pathetic And he was actually a really nice person in general! I read the book and almost felt like I got mood whiplash from how I expected him to act.
Reading about a character falling into insanity, knowing it and being powerless to stop it is not a fun time but an enthralling read~
Sorry, saw a hunchback comment and got excited XD
The main villain of the book, and one truly evil character became the love interest for Esmeralda in the Disney movie.
Tekno Pathetic You are correct but I still cracked up at that joke lol
Some idiot at Disney: Hey, remember that awesome villain, Maleficent? The most evil villain in the entire Disney pantheon who proudly declares herself "the Mistress of All Evil" and cursed an innocent girl over not getting invited to a party? Let's make her a kindhearted antihero with a heart of gold who secretly loves the little girl she cursed like her own daughter. And also, let's make it so that she's only evil because some man betrayed her because that's the only reason a woman would EVER become evil! Women having agency? What's that? And while we're at it, let's add some uncomfortable rape symbolism to said betrayal, 'cause kids like rape, right? Oh, and let's take her slimy unlikable bird sidekick and turn him into an emo hunk who wants to be friends with everyone! And also, let's take the three good fairies who were the real true heroes of the story and super kind, loving and responsible guardians to Aurora and make them bumbling imbeciles who can't do anything right and nearly kill Aurora a few times. Oh and let's never have Maleficent become a dragon because pffft, who wants to see that?
Some other idiot at Disney: That all sounds brilliant! Let's pour all our money into this project and hype it up as much as possible!
That feeling when freaking DESCENDANTS came up with a better backstory for Maleficent.
I disagree, except for that the fairies were annoying. The last thing any story needs is a shallow villain that is pure evil by definition and with no reason. They made Maleficent a much deeper and more interesting character.
"The last thing any story needs is a shallow villain that is pure evil by definition and with no reason."
Someone isn't familiar with fairy lore--evil/malevolent fairies like Maleficent didn't _need_ reasons for treating humans like crap. They were capricious little nightmares with hair-trigger tempers and extremely fragile egos. One tiny insult (like, oh I dunno, not being invited to a party), and they'd make your life an eternal living Hell.
But then, I also like villains who are more complicated than that. It'd be nice to see Maleficent as such, but why suck away everything that originally made her cool to do so?
That said, as shallow as SB!Maleficent was, I think she more than made up for it with her overall characterization, with all the traits NC listed in this video. Dang did she leave an impression on an entire generation of people.
Making a a PG-version of "I spit on your grave" isn't a "deep and interesting" character. It's cheap, lazy and exploitative.
I do have a mild issue with the "not inviting her to a party" thing. In the older versions of the story is was explicitly Aurora's christening. The christening was a huge deal and the human kingdom offered a massive slight to Maleficent, a being with as much clout as a human king, by inviting the other fairies but not her. It's made much worse when the king doubles down on not having invited her, so she curses a baby. It's made less obvious in more modern tellings, which doesn't work for me because it does make the character of Maleficent that much less complex.
True. Even more of a reason for Maleficent to be insulted!
And it _still_ works with her motivation, as her curse on Aurora still feels a bit like disproportionate retribution, at least to me.
When a live action adaptation is more childish than it's supposedly child fairy tale animated version, you know they screwed up.
That battle at the beginning really was the best part.
I just hope it'll show something more of real old characters that we know... Or at least some easter eggs, I donno
Spoiler alert: The movie bombed.
And the sequel was disliked even more
Why does Maleficent sound like Bayonetta?
Becuase both are badass (the old Maleficent)
Because Angelina Jolie is actually a sexy witch.
Enough talk goddess. Don’t mess with a witch.
"Don't mess with a witch"! Was that the reason why Gamergate got so demonized??
She doesn't. At all. They both have English accents, but that's the only similarity.
(After seeing that Alice Through The Looking Glass is next)
Oh snap! Looks like we’re headed back to Burtonland!
But didn't Burton only produce that one?
Was the movie bad? Never seen it
Yeah, the director of the recent Muppet films direct Looking Glass.
Hard to say. I enjoyed it more than the original, it has more of the creative strangeness of Wonderland, but the critic's reaction to it is definitely a lot lower. And, seeing as though the Critic's main complaint about the original was that it wasn't faithful to the original spirit of the book, I don't know if this means he'll hate the sequel more or less.
A Disney live action month?
oh lord
player35460 time for a string of boring to mediocre movies.
Yep, this is going to be painful...
They ruined Maleficent... the single most evil character in Disney's entire history...
I loved the evil Maleficent
Claude Frollo is laughing
What about scar, Ursula or Jafar
Uhhhh Hades? The god of the underworld?
**Laughs In The Coachman** I Have Trauma Bias Over The Coachman
So excited that it's Remake Month!
It's gonna be a fun month
Me too. I love remake month.
Amp661 Next week's review will be of Alice Through the Looking Glass.
SupaPixelGirl bitch, you’re everywhere! And I mean EVERYWHERE!
indeed
Judge Frollo wouldnt be bad for a story revealing more about his past... Oh wait they did that, it's THE BOOK
Jackson Parker he still wants to commit mass genocide tho
Fifty Shades of Grey.
to be fair he wasn't a genocidal maniac in the book
Out of Curiosity, what "Geno" does Frollo want to 'Cide"?
I believe he wanted to eliminate the 'gypsie' population (which Esmeralda was a part of), more properly called the Romani, an ethnic group that apparently originated from India.
In Wicked (The Book) Gregory MacGuire took Elphaba and had her do everything she did in the originial wizard of Oz (the hunt for the ruby slippers, the hatred of the wizard, terrorizing Dorothy and her pals) but Gregory MacGuire clued us into her motivations. So we get a character that takes the same actions but those actions are now in a different light. In the stage play they changed Elphaba to make her story about triumphing over adversity when it was really a story about seeking absolution and a father's love. This story makes the same mistake, taking the genuinely compelling "fairy who was left out" story of maleficent and turning it into a "woman scorned" tale.
I mean, at least original Phillip and Aurora have some chemistry, they have the cute dance scene and Phillip is like, a pretty enjoyable character. I remember the joke he made and he went through literal hell to save Aurora, not because they were engaged, but because he actually liked her. I took one look at floppy hair McGee live action Phillip and knew “ohhhhh, he’s being made fun of, isn’t he?” And I’m just saying, original Phillip doesn’t deserve this slander.
Why do I want to see Quasimodo and frollo go bowling?
just to check if Frollo would use quasimodo as the ball?
Yeah. Quasi would be a knockout(no pun intended).
I’d be down for it, especially if those damn gargoyles are the bowling pins.
Indiana Bones Knowing the movie I’d be willing to bet that Frollo burns down the whole alley after losing in the last set.
You are not the only one
I thought the reason Maleficent didn't wake up when Stefan cut of her wings was because he drug her drink?
He did.
A roofie probably won't keep you unconscious while your limbs are sawed off. Otherwise anesthesiologists wouldn't get paid so much.
Yeah, but is this really the logic you're going to have a problem with in this movie?
I mean.... the wings magically reattach themselves too. They clearly don't behave like real limbs.
I think he just got her super drunk, and because she'd never been drunk before her tolerance was low? I admit that I don't remember the details all that well.
Jacob Bielski That's got to be one HELL of a drug.
Pretty convent that return of Mary Poppins and Christopher Robin Release Teasers right before this comes out... Coincidence? I think not! ;-)
Conveniently, both sequels, instead of remakes.
Raptorus77 Either way, can’t wait to see Christopher Robin. That sounds like an interesting continuation to the Winnie the Pooh series much like Hook is for Peter Pan . . . what can I say I have a soft spot for that film plus it is definitely the best live action Peter Pan movie.
They’re sequels not remakes!
Wait Yondu is alive?
Raptorus77 Lin is gonna do great!
Kingdom Hearts 2 was way, way better at making Maleficent an anti-hero. Thanks Disney, one of your subsidiary properties just did your story more than 10 years back and was more convincing at it as well.
My thing with this vs. Wicked is kinda in line with what Bobsheaux said about it:
Wicked worked because you didn't see the Wicked Witch often, and what Wicked did was show a certain chain of events that led to the possibility that the original Wizard of Oz happened, but the Witch was seen as evil from misunderstanding and point of view. None of the characters actively conflict with their original portrayals, we just see what Wicked portrays as *more* of them.
Wicked melded with the original story and could conceivably coexist with it. All the original characters still did what they did in the Wizard of Oz.
Maleficent doesn't work because they *change* the characters and the story. The King in the original was nothing but good, and Maleficent was nothing but bad. Now in the live action remake they flipped it backwards and just made Maleficent all 'Dark Is Not Evil' and Phillip 'Light Is Not Good'. They don't have very many ties to the original story outside of themes and appearance.
Uhh, hate to be that guy that corrects 5 month old comments, but i think you mean that Stefan was ''Light Is Not Good''. Phillip is the prince, Stefan is the king.
Man, I actually really liked this movie. But having watched this video, I can't entirely blame Critic for having this on his hit list
Rachel Orange I used to work at a costume store, and this movie sold a ton of costumes, it does have problems, but there is something there for people who find it I beleave. It has disney magic on it for sure. The way I think the live action alice in wonder land movie is bad but popular, with some substance to grasp for those who see it, this movie has elements of relatability and empowerment. Even if it is somewhat mis-guided.
Truth be told, I would love to watch „Bowling for Notre-Dame“ (possible title).
Fun fact: Frollo was not a villain in the original novel, yet disney turned him into one of its worst. If people are so upset over changing the holy original of Sleeping Beauty, why did noone get upset over the hunchback? Maybe because they don't know the original?
Repliar of Ancient Comments That’s entirely possible.
Repliar of Ancient Comments I guess because the way he was written as a villain was interesting, complex and tense. With Maleficent, I'm not quite sure...
I'll admit, I did kind of find her endearing when I first watched this movie, but after a while, the way they narrate her being a "hero" feels forced, I suppose.
Repliar of Ancient Comments Lindsay Ellis's video goes into pretty good detail about why Hunchback was changed.
Tl,dr is that the original author had been altering it for years anyway through stageplay adaptations.