DVDizzy Forum

if there has to be a sequel I hope we at least get more cutie crow guy.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Miss Manday wrote: I enjoyed it too.

Me, three. I wouldn't say I loved it, but I enjoyed it despite its flaws. The first film borrowed nothing from the animated film (and little from the original tale) except Maleficent's look and the christening dialogue, so I don't see any harm in a sequel.

Me four. I did enjoy the first movie despite it's flaws and I think the sequel might have a chance to be a better movie than the original. One thing's for sure, Disney loves using Linda Woolverton a lot.

It's official guys, Angelina Jolie WILL return as Maleficent and Linda Woolverton is confirmed to write the screenplay. Along with other announcements.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/04/25/ ... -new-films

Ugh, I was hoping that with the success of more faithful adaptations like Cinderella and The Jungle Book, Disney might think about dropping this.

Really, Disney?

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Is it too much to hope for Maleficent to actually be a villain this time?

ChrisLyne wrote:Is it too much to hope for Maleficent to actually be a villain this time?

Hmm, I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, the first one was okay, it certainly had its issues, but I did enjoy Jolie's performance, even though the character was changed drastically. If they will convince Jolie to reprise her role, I will give it a watch, because, let's face it, she was the best thing in the movie.

Sicoe Vlad wrote:Hmm, I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, the first one was okay, it certainly had its issues, but I did enjoy Jolie's performance, even though the character was changed drastically. If they will convince Jolie to reprise her role, I will give it a watch, because, let's face it, she was the best thing in the movie.

It's already been confirmed that Jolie IS reprising her role as Maleficent in the sequel. Speaking of which, the first film looked as if everything was wrapped up story wise so I'm curious as to how can the story keep going without it seemingly pointless.

I don't mind live-action films being created based on fary tales and other pre-existing literatures. But why does modern Disney feel the need to create remake of an animated film based up on said literature?

I will be intrigued as to where they go with the story. I figure the damage has been done to Maleficent as a character already, so if you can see this as a fresh take on a 'new' character, it might be fun.

Her performance was fantastic for sure, hope she brings it again for the second outing. And as mentioned, if it shows another situation that truly makes her dark, that could be fun ! Though I feel if that were the case, it might be moving into a bit of a garbled remake like Bewitched did ....

I was so disappointed with the first movie, the only scene I liked was the naming ceremony. Sorry Disney but I'm probably gonna end up watching this on netflix 10 years later.

I wonder if the sequel will have King Kinloch and Queen Ulla, the characters that were originally supposed to be in the first movie but cut due to story reasons. It would be interesting if they are fairies who wish to take the Moors because "human filth" should never rule the kingdom.

Atlantica wrote: I figure the damage has been done to Maleficent as a character already

I don't think Maleficent (the Disney character) has been damaged at all. I still feel these live-action films are a passing fad and that 20 years from now--I'd go further and say 10 years from now--nobody will remember them like the animated classics they're based on. They'll be where the live-action films based on Dalmatians and TJB in the '90s are now. I guess that's why the creation of these films don't bother me in the least.

At least the live action 101 Dalmatians tried to be faithful to the animated one while trying to be its own thing instead of screwing the story and characters up entirely.

What I do like about these live action films is that they have a variety from: filmmakers that go bonkers and change them so much that they don't resemble the animated film at all (Alice in Wonderland and it's sequel, Maleficent, the upcoming Pete's Dragon) to filmmakers that give their own spin but mostly stay true to the source material (Cinderella and The Jungle Book). I would rather have this era over the 90's live action films any day of the week.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Atlantica wrote: I figure the damage has been done to Maleficent as a character already

I don't think Maleficent (the Disney character) has been damaged at all. I still feel these live-action films are a passing fad and that 20 years from now--I'd go further and say 10 years from now--nobody will remember them like the animated classics they're based on. They'll be where the live-action films based on Dalmatians and TJB in the '90s are now. I guess that's why the creation of these films don't bother me in the least.

I'm not referring to the legacy of the Maleficent character from Sleeping Beauty, but the live action version of her character. Damage in the sense of we now already know she was not quite the baddie we once knew etc; so there won't be that disappointment in that sense for this film. Hence, the damage has already been done...if you understand what I mean.

Atlantica wrote:I'm not referring to the legacy of the Maleficent character from Sleeping Beauty, but the live action version of her character. Damage in the sense of we now already know she was not quite the baddie we once knew etc; so there won't be that disappointment in that sense for this film. Hence, the damage has already been done...if you understand what I mean.

Oh, yeah. Sorry I went on a tangent there. You're right. At least that means nobody can complain about seeing it since they have to know what they're getting served this time.

I'll be okay if they use the sequel to the original story of Sleeping Beauty by Charles Perrault...