DVDizzy Forum

Wow, how interesting ! Would that have been a theatrical animated feature do you think, or a DTV feature ? Voiced by Susan Blakeslee I wonder ?

I'm glad it didn't happen in animated form. Not that I wouldn't like it animated, just the quality would never match Sleeping Beauty so it would be an instant fail.

As much as I've grown to love the 1959 classic, I wouldn't mind if this project became animated, as long as it was done properly.

With the Blu-Ray being released in America next week, does anyone know of any deals or special offers stores are doing? Target or Best Buy or anything?

Atlantica wrote:Wow, how interesting ! Would that have been a theatrical animated feature do you think, or a DTV feature ?

Yeah, I'm wondering that, too. Though, for some reason, I don't see Lasseter being head over heels for it if it was originally a movie intended for the WDAS unit.

Yes, I agree, certainly anything in animated form would have been a great disappointment visually compared to Sleeping Beauty itself. Live action is the by the form that most suited it!

Is the Maleficent live action face character still in the Disney parks ? Or was it just for the movie release she was seen ?

She hasn't been a regular at Disneyland/Disneyland California Adventure since I moved back to California in June.

Maleficent is for special events only. She was at Rock Your Disney Side and the Friday the 13th Villains event. (both at Disney World.)

Miss Manday wrote:Maleficent is for special events only. She was at Rock Your Disney Side and the Friday the 13th Villains event. (both at Disney World.)

Thank Jesus. I don't think I could bare with the thought of Jolie!Maleficent being permanently incorporated into the parks, let alone replacing the face character for animated!Maleficent.

DisneyJedi wrote:

Miss Manday wrote:Maleficent is for special events only. She was at Rock Your Disney Side and the Friday the 13th Villains event. (both at Disney World.)

Thank Jesus. I don't think I could bare with the thought of Jolie!Maleficent being permanently incorporated into the parks, let alone replacing the face character for animated!Maleficent.

I'm still baffled that anyone could think things like this would happen. Alice was a way bigger hit and there's no Depp face character. They'll always stick to the animated ones, because they are the originals. Plus, in my opinion, the animated Maleficent face character has started to look a little suspect to me recently and could really use an upgrade.

Atlantica wrote:Wow, how interesting ! Would that have been a theatrical animated feature do you think, or a DTV feature?

It was planned as a theatrical one.

Q: Were there any discussions, at any point along the way, of doing this as an animated feature, or was it always going to be live-action?

Don Hahn: It did start out as an animated idea, briefly, when I was there in feature animation. We love Maleficent. She’s a favorite villain in the parks and the shows they do at Disneyland. We thought, “Can we bring back that character and do an animated film?” So, it was in serious consideration as an animated feature, but pretty quickly migrated over to live-action. That was six or seven years ago. And then, I worked with Sean Bailey, who’s the head of the studio, and that’s when Angelina came in and it started to be really clear that this could be something special, if she attached to the project, and it became clear that live-action would be much more interesting. And then, you’re not competing with the original movie, either, ‘cause why do that? The original movie is there. You can pop it in and look at it, so why make another one? This was a way to expand on that story.

Source: http://collider.com/don-hahn-maleficent ... interview/

Q: How did Maleficent come about?

Don Hahn: It goes back to when David Stainton was head of animation about seven or eight years ago, and it was pitched as an animation project. Not a Sleeping Beauty reboot as much as building on how Maleficent is one of the great Disney villains. It didn't go too far.

Source: http://blogs.indiewire.com/animationsco ... y-20141104

... Except I don't see how there could be any expanding on their part, because the movie has no tie-in with the animated film. Just like the 1998 Godzilla film starring Matthew Broderick, everything about this movie is In-Name Only.

This is a completely different story, with completely different characters, only sharing the same name as those from the animated film with few exceptions. There's a different between expanding something versus being unfaithful, and the film opted for the latter option.

And why was she in some Villains event at the park when she wasn't even the villain in this movie?

For those of you that are interested, I have had the 3D/2D bundle of "Malificent" on my Vudu/UltraViolet cloud for two weeks now.

I know that there are a lot of 'collectors' out there who need to have the physical discs, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying getting my movies up to three weeks earlier than the release date.

Netflix or Redbox can't compete with that. And for the most part I truly have had a great experience with Vudu/UltraViolet for the past six months. I have transferred almost four hundred titles to my cloud, including over 30 Disney Animated and Live action movies.

My insurance man tells me that it worth a big savings on my household insurance by doing this. In a fire or major catastrophe where I may lose all my physical Blu-rays and DVDs, I won't ever lose my cloud products.

Some upcoming releases only to Vudu/UltraViolet in the coming weeks include "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Dawn of The Planet of the Apes" and many, many more.

Maleficent was planned to be an animated film and a theatrical one at that? That would've been weird... I bought the Blu-ray and I still really like the movie when I saw it in theaters.

Okay, so I rewatched the movie last weekend with my mom and dad. And... It's somewhat decent. I loved the acting and (some of) the characters and the visuals. The story was okay. I guess the only thing I hate about it is that Disney advertised it as a way of saying, "Do you remember Disney's animated version of Sleeping Beauty made fifty-five years ago? Do you love it? Too bad! Walt's been lying to you for fifty-five years! This is the TRUE story behind everything!"

That's what I find rather upsetting.

DisneyJedi wrote:Okay, so I rewatched the movie last weekend with my mom and dad. And... It's somewhat decent. I loved the acting and (some of) the characters and the visuals. The story was okay. I guess the only thing I hate about it is that Disney advertised it as a way of saying, "Do you remember Disney's animated version of Sleeping Beauty made fifty-five years ago? Do you love it? Too bad! Walt's been lying to you for fifty-five years! This is the TRUE story behind everything!"

That's what I find rather upsetting.

Exactly. The movie, in and of itself, looks like it'd be a decent movie. But the fact that they advertised it as being a tie-in with the Animated Movie, even though it(and the characters) bore absolutely no resemblance to the characters and storyline of the animated movie, save for the curse and certain characters sharing the same name...

... And for a movie that's supposed to be based on Maleficent, the Mistress of all Evil... They completely missed the point to the original character. And they twisted the other characters so that they could put Maleficent in a better light; I just... I can't forgive them for that.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I see it as a completely separate story from Sleeping Beauty, with only the characters of Maleficent and Aurora as connections to it.

While Watching the first 10 minutes of Maleficent as a cute innocent little girl flying around I looked at my girl friend and whispered just shoot me. That being said the movie was much improved upon that leaked script I read. But with that being said, I would have rather seen a Sleeping Beauty movie with Angelina Jolie being Maleficent and not focus on making her good. Because Angelina Jolie did good imitating Maleficent quite well.

I just watched this today and I found it spectacularly mediocre. I didn't even find Jolie to be that great (which, apparently, many people did). It's rather difficult to separate Sleeping Beauty and this film, but I tried to keep an open mind while watching it.

I found the beginning to be almost cringe-worthy. Seeing a character in their younger years seems to now be the norm for most Disney films, and I found this "origin" prologue to be overly cutesy, making it quite unlikeable. It doesn't help that the narration states that the story we've once heard isn't "quite" right. No, apparently the "correct" version (this one) is the opposite of what we've once heard. Seeing a happy little fairy Maleficent hardly intrigues me because I know she's supposed to be the Mistress of Evil (again, it was almost impossible for me to not compare this film to the animated film). Another component I disliked was the inclusion of parts of Maleficent's dialogue that is in the animated film when she curses Aurora. Woolverton should have either scraped it all and started anew or included the dialogue exactly as it is in the 1959 film. The dialogue Woolverton added to the scene was incredibly clunky, unsatisfying, and did not fit in with the exquisite writing found in the animated film. It was also entirely unnecessary to change the curse. Putting Aurora in a "sleep like death" isn't an appropriate reaction on Maleficent's part (I mean, come on, she's exacting her revenge after getting her wings chopped off--it just does not make any sense); plus, the last fairy (it's not Merryweather, but it's her equivalent) could easily have given her last spell and made the hopes of those in the kingdom a bit brighter.

That being said, the one thing that I did actually think was a good idea is Diaval. I think that his inclusion works rather well because it gives Maleficent someone to confide it, to associate with, to build a relationship with (instead of the odd stalkerish relationship she has with Aurora). I also don't mind that Diaval becomes the dragon. Once Maleficent regains her wings, it becomes unnecessary for her to become the dragon.

While there are some pluses (Diaval, the CGI was decent, some of the acting), there are a number of minuses. That being said, it wasn't entirely un-entertaining. 3/5.

disneyboy20022 wrote:While Watching the first 10 minutes of Maleficent as a cute innocent little girl flying around I looked at my girl friend and whispered just shoot me. That being said the movie was much improved upon that leaked script I read. But with that being said, I would have rather seen a Sleeping Beauty movie with Angelina Jolie being Maleficent and not focus on making her good. Because Angelina Jolie did good imitating Maleficent quite well.

Precisely. This movie was such a wasted opportunity. If only they had gone the route that they are going now with Cinderella... I hope we get a live action Sleeping Beauty movie someday that actually resembles the original animated classic.