Wow, okay... Thanks, both of you, for getting so deep into this discussion that you screwed up the lists.
Here is the CORRECT list, everyone (with my today-vote included):
The Evil Queen - 14
Lady Tremaine - 12
The Queen of Hearts - 2
Ursula - 18 (+2)
Eliminated:
Marina Del Ray
Queen Narissa
Morgana
Zira
Helga Sinclair
Madame Medusa
Mad Madam Mim
Yzma
Mother Gothel
Cruella de Vil
Maleficent
Jay wrote:No I haven't forgotten that Eleanor Audley was hand picked by Walt himself for the role and that she was a live action reference for the character.
Than why did you say something as silly as "if it wasn't for her the character wouldn't be as popular as she is in my opinion"? I mean, think about it. She is Maleficent. She's the only Maleficent. You can't say there was a chance someone else could have been the character. Because she
was the character. You suggested someone else could have come in and played the character as we know it but Audley
created that character as we know it. So the entire movie would have been different from the animation stage, forget what people think of the character now. You're saying she would have made the character, but someone else would have done the voice? Absurd!
Jay wrote:And how is she a flawed villain?
I repeat (and bolded the important part(s):
"Snow White is over-the-top. So, it doesn't matter what ideas they had. They're not as scary as Sleeping Beauty. So, they had the idea to have characters react in fear over a name. Sure- I'll give you that. But what good does it do when the heroine is an utter idiot, the Dwarfs are hasty stereotypes with really not that much personality between them (just Doc, Dopey, Grumpy really), and the music is too blunt to make anyone scared?"
Point being: the villainess is only as strong as her movie. If the movie gives us significantly flawed scenes with the heroine or the people the villainess is meant to be wreaking havoc upon, what good did all the stuff you're talking about - the build up and certain establishing scenes - ever do? Answer: not much.
Jay wrote:And no there really were no shots when she appeared. People were looking on when the wind was blowing and everything.
Wait a second!! Again, you're abusing movie logic versus movie-watchers' logic. In the movie, all the people see is the wind blowing. Okay? They can't hear the music telling the audience watching the movie that something is coming and something is happening.
We can. The audience. They may suspect it's Maleficent, but they first react to it as though it were just the wind. In fact... didn't you just prove me right in your own argument. Went ahead and said yourself, it takes Fauna to say: "it's Maleficent!" They don't know it's her at first. Could have just been the wind. Which I wouldn't be surprised if they reacted in a slight fright because Maleficent has them on-edge more than most kingdoms would be. Anything could have spooked them. This same theory, just to cover my ass here, doesn't apply to Snow White to explain why she overreacts and screams at everything.
Jay wrote:But when she herself appeared nobody reacted in horror. Fauna just said "Why it's Maleficent!" Nobody screamed or ran and the King had a pretty pissed look on his face throughout the scene. And of course the guards were terrified as she vanished because they were only inches away from flames.
First of all, I already dealt with one of your points in my last reply. I repeat:
"Only the King and 2 of the fairies didn't appear to be scared of her. And that's of course because they were being protective. Trying to put on a brave face." My point was: you may argue the King wasn't scared but what do you think anger is? It's a front, a form of defense, to cover a weakness. Fear is a weakness. I'm putting the two together. He was scared.
Second: who is "nobody" in Sleeping Beauty? We don't see individual members of the kingdom, citizens / villagers / townspeople, whatever. It's part of the stylistic framework of the film that the nobodies you're refering to are treated like a flock of sheep in a sense. Or as backgrounds- extentions of. They affirm the atmosphere or keep it in check. Which means, if the tone of the scene suggests disaster, fear, excitement, they go along with it. You're suggesting the opposite is true. That their lack of a reaction proves Maleficent had less of a presence. Again, I don't agree (to say the least). Actually, another great example is: they're like the human race looking up at the sky while an alien spaceship is landing and they're unable to move because they're shocked / in awe.
As for the Guards... not a bad point you have there. But consider a couple of things: 1) You think they've never seen fire before? 2) If their expressions weren't of Maleficent's magic and instead just of the flames (something real her magic sparked in the atmosphere), why did they complete a full expression on their face, with eyes wide-open, and not jump backward? Wouldn't the brilliance from the intensity of the fire hurt their eyes? Yes it would. Wouldn't their faces show more sporadic movements (of eyes, skin, etc) if they were afraid of the fire? Yes, they would. And wouldn't they at any point... oh, I dunno...
get the hell out of the way?!?!?! Yes, they would.
See for yourself, they're scared of Maleficent and her magic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCV0hy6ex1c
I'm not saying the reason they chose to stop in their tracks didn't have something to do with the fire. I'm saying- look at their faces. They're not reacting in "we can't go on, captain" mode. They're reacting in fear of her magic. Which pokes a significant hole in your theory.
Jay wrote:And the Queen was a powerful woman. Obviously there is more to her than we see. I always thought her "faithful" huntsman was her mancandy and I feel her threats were deeper than simlpy having him executed. She could have been meaning to reveal their adultery to the huntsmans family and then kill his family and simply lock him in her dungeon and leave him there to starve and or die of thirst. Did you not see all the skulls and bodies in her dungeon? Obvioulsy this isn't the Queens first act of murder and she enjoys making people suffer.
To the last part - yes, I did. But you're taking for granted that just because she sentenced people to imprisonment and perhaps torture, that had a more personal involvement with their deaths. Her "thirsy? Have a drink" line (which is classic, I'd never argue that) could easily be the work of any spoiled member of royalty, amused by how power they have. It only takes apathy, not gall, to do something like that. You can't really say it proves that she took special enjoyment in suffering. She simply took a short moment of pleasure in seeing what she was able to bring about. Doesn't mean she really went down there and watched people suffer.
Again, you're reading way too much into something. I mean- a potential fling/affair, I'll give you. But- the huntsman's family? "I'll reveal our sexual history to" this person or that person?? That's just absurd. You say "obviously there is more to her than we see." But there's no indication that there's anywhere near as much stuff as you're finding in the story given to us by the movie itself.
Jay wrote:And of course Snow White is going to be scared she just learned her stepmother wanted her dead. I think if you foound out someone was out to kill you you would be a little jumpy yourself.
A
LITTLE jumpy?!?! By the way, she also screamed and threw her hands up (if I'm not mistaken) when the Prince showed up. Before this scene.... Okay, maybe it was more like a gasp, but she took off like Runaway Bride. Or the streets of Pamplona. Whilst flailing the aforementioned hands in the air.
Be serious, though: Snow White was scared of everything in sight. Because she was so stupid, her mouth opened before her eyes did. She's not a good meter to read if you want to know how dangerous the Queen was.
Jay wrote:And the mirror and the vultures werent scared of her because they were shown to be evil like the Queen herself.
You can't prove that.
Vultures by nature's definition are scavengers. Only Melody Time showed them attacking their alleged prey before time of death. Their creepy expressions were nothing more than an artistic embellishment on public fear of them. The public knows if you see them, it's bad news. Which of course even goes further to prove my point that Snow White is over-the-top. But as far as character goes: they weren't evil. They were just excited.
The mirror was a drone. A spirit. That doesn't mean he's evil. In fact, he was very wise. And a power greater than the Queen, I think everyone would agree. If anything, you should be saying he's not afraid because he's magical. Not evil. I say he's not scared of her
because he's wise. And as I write this, do you remember the end of Ichabod & Mr. Toad? The narrator, who you figure the Headless Horseman can't physically touch (in the same way the Queen can't touch the figure inside the mirror) the narrator- but he's scared anyway. I say it's a Disney tradition to have everyone afraid of villains. Heck, look at Smee- afraid of Hook. Creeper- afraid of Horned King. Kaa- afraid of Shere Kahn. The damned- afraid of Chernabog. Honest John and Gideon- afraid of the Coachman. Horace and Jasper- afraid of Cruella. Hiss- afraid of Prince John. Snoops- afraid of Medusa. Iago- afraid of Jafar. Hyenas- afraid of Scar. Amos- afraid of the big bad bear.
Jay wrote:And the fact that the Queen is seen in her regular form for so little time makes her very mysterious. She has an air of mystery around her and when she turns into the hag she lets her horrible true personality shins through. Because ehs is ugly on the outside she can let her ugliness on the inside pour out as well.
That doesn't make much sense. The only mystery about her is the wait to see what she does next. And once you see the movie once, you know what she's capable of and everything she does. Only Maleficent has an aura that permeates mystically throughout the atmosphere of the film. Though there are some touches throughout other Disney classics that suggest something could be coming- seldomly attached to a villain. The "Tulgey Wood" scene in Alice in Wonderland- for example (the movie's best moody sequence- hear those kinda creepy birds chirping at the front and back of it). Especially as the Queen of Hearts is mentioned several times before we see her. Hey, look at that: she's still on the list here. She gets a build-up. Word of mouth. That's more than the Queen ever gets. She knows a little magic (far less than Ursula), which she just gets from a book. And has a mean streak. Most petty people do. I say it comes from selishness and apathy. Just look at politicians (and how far removed they are from the common working American). In a realistic context, The Queen wouldn't have magic, but she'd be in control of her kingdom, and with her attitude be more terrifying than Maleficent who - again, in a realistic context - would just be a derelict. A vagrant. Vincent Price in Theater of Blood. But, in a magical world, Maleficent is not human. Her wrath is something greater than a person's. The Queen? She's only too believably human. You can argue that's worth more in reality, but these moves take place in a fantasy world.
Jay wrote:And Aroura is barley in the movie. She has a very unactive role while Snow White is given more to do and she is not an idiot just pure and naive. Trusing like a child which she is.
Jay, I just got through saying in my last reply that Aurora was a symbol of something. Therefore, she doesn't register as a heroine. What's your point? At least, since she wasn't a heroine, she wasn't a weakling- like Snow White. She's more like a magical object, again: she was spiritually blessed from the day of her birth. There's no contest here. Aurora's actual involvement in the movie as a character has no bearing on Maleficent's activities. Not like Snow White. Again, watch the apple scene but keep your attention focused on Snow White. Think about this event from her point of view. There is no motivation for her to bring this clearly predatory person into the house where she was living. Yet she does anyway. No reason to trust her. Yet she does anyway. And all along, she completely forgets the Dwarfs' warning because either she's an idiot and forgot, or she's an idiot and wasn't listening when they told her: don't let bitches in this house. (Okay, it was a cottage, but saying "house" is more fun.)
Snow White was an idiot. 's all there is to it. Not that I don't find the scene amusing in an absurd way...I do.
Jay wrote:And the faires arent any less of a sterotype than the dwarfs.
They had better, more fleshed-out, and less cliched personalities. You can't deny it. They even held actual conversations that had nothing to do with the plot!! While Happy would whack Dopey, reprising untold Silly Symphony gags, Dopey was detailing what Figaro would do in Pinocchio, and Grumpy was busy establishing one of Disney's worst and most odious cliches in the book (the He-Man Woman Hater, which rears it's ugly head in: Peter Pan, Melody Time, The Aristocats, Robin Hood, The Black Cauldron, just to name a few), the fairies were actually engaging each other in displaying believable human characteristics. It may be old-fashioned, but it's good stuff. I mean, hell- that moment alone where Merriweather has to call "reality check" on Flora's plan ("I still think what I thunk before, I'm going to get those wands") - to which Fauna replies "You know... I think she's right," also the moment she actually chooses a side - is gold right there. And I say- better than anything the Dwarfs had going on. Goofy romance? Oh how cute: Dopey runs back for another kiss.
Awwww...: Grumpy's blushing!! Sounds like the whole film needs some work in the writing department to me.
Jay wrote:And in the scene where the dwarfs first meet Snow white Grumpy states that the Queen is full of balck magic and "she can be in his room right now." So obviously they know of the Queen's power and while she may not be as powerful as Maleficent she is powerful in her own right.
Oh, dear. Sounds like you might need a re-watch on that scene.
First: the music they play while Grumpy says those things is comical. Suggesting that he's being paranoid.
Second: The nature of plain village folk telling tales like this in film is a staple of urban legend. It's a form of gossip; "I heard they could do (this and that)." The male version of an Old Wives' Tail. Meaning- you have to take everything the speaker says with a grain of salt. That has bearing on this case, I believe, because there isn't a single piece of evidence throughout the film that what Grumpy says is true. Yes, the Queen has black magic. But; he also said earlier that the stew Snow White was cooking was probably poisoned, women are full of "wicked wiles," and suggesting that the Queen could be in the room at that moment? His dialogue is nothing more than his imagination running wild.
Third: consider the source. Grumpy. A character whose actions are tainted not by a desire to be protective, but by his need to feel like he's the leader rather than Doc (I think even Walt himself said something about Doc not being a real leader of their troop). This is a chance to get attention and seem like he's got everyone's best interests at heart. In fact, what he's doing for a moment isn't that much unlike Gaston. Except that he's right (where Gaston was wrong) and that when he doesn't get his way anyway- he sits with his arms and legs crossed, pouts, and complains.
Jay wrote:And it's obvious that Maleficent is upset at her raven's death. She gasps and is genuinley shocked to see he has been killed. And this adds to her drive to go after Phillip.
Actually, the raven was transformed. It's no longer a raven- it's a block of stone. Maleficent was only shocked at this because she knew another form of magic was undoing her plans. And... her drive to go after Phillip? Uh-uh. She only was driven to go after him because he was trying to undo her spell. She waited 16 years and apparently obsessed over her plot every day of every one of those years- and you honestly think the raven is the reason for her intensity? Or that that had anything to do with her performance this moment? I'm saying "no," flat-out.
