DVDizzy Forum

There will obviously be Angelina merchandise but it will fade quickly. This movie isn't going to be a phenomenon anyway, but she wouldn't be "replaced" even if it was.

As has been mentioned, Glenn Close gave a fantastic performance as Cruella but they didn't phase out the animated version. I really can't imagine any situation in which they'd do that. They make so much money off the animated images of these characters. I guess maybe for one of their less popular characters/films that they don't market much anyway, but not one of their iconic villains.

Lady Cluck wrote:There will obviously be Angelina merchandise but it will fade quickly. This movie isn't going to be a phenomenon anyway, but she wouldn't be "replaced" even if it was.

As has been mentioned, Glenn Close gave a fantastic performance as Cruella but they didn't phase out the animated version. I really can't imagine any situation in which they'd do that. They make so much money off the animated images of these characters. I guess maybe for one of their less popular characters/films that they don't market much anyway, but not one of their iconic villains.

Exactly!

In-between this, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Frozen -- all released so close to each other -- Disney is really walking on a thin line between honoring Wicked and ripping it off. Heck, combine these three movies and you already have Wicked ready for the big screen.

Disney's always been obsessed with Wicked. There's also a few similarities between that and PATF. All I'm saying is that if Disney's so desperate for making that film, they should just buy the rights for it and be happy.

I do not think that Elle Fanning has the right look for the part, she looks to young and she is not... "pretty" enough, to sound a bit shallow and superficial. I also don't understand why they could not make her clothes more like those in the classic film and why they had to change the names of the three fairies Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. Just to let Linda Woolverton come up with foolish new names, just like she did for all the characters in Alice in Wonderland?

Maybe the new names are actually code names like "Briar Rose"...

Prince Edward wrote:I do not think that Elle Fanning has the right look for the part, she looks to young and she is not... "pretty" enough, to sound a bit shallow and superficial. I also don't understand why they could not make her clothes more like those in the classic film and why they had to change the names of the three fairies Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. Just to let Linda Woolverton come up with foolish new names, just like she did for all the characters in Alice in Wonderland?

I dont think Elle fanning is too young. Especially since Aurora is supposed to be 16.

I keep hearing comments like: "It's not like the original Disney movie", "Why are the characters I love turned into terrible jerks?". I guess the arguement is that it's a huge retelling of the original fairytale than the Disney movie and I have one big question: Why does everyone hate Linda Woolverton so much? I do understand that she's been overrated amongst Disney fans because the studio credits her to have been the cause of the success of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, when in reality, she provided the concept, not the final dialogue in the film which is credited to the story people. But Alice in Wonderland's script, to me, was alright but it could've been better. Besides Paul Dini is the co-writer of this movie so maybe half of the changes to the fairytale to fit with Maleficent must've been him.

thedisneyspirit wrote:Disney's always been obsessed with Wicked. There's also a few similarities between that and PATF. All I'm saying is that if Disney's so desperate for making that film, they should just buy the rights for it and be happy.

That's exactly what I was thinking! But no, everyone's like, 'Noes! Disney can't make the movie, Universal owns the rights, you stupid idiots!'

DisneyJedi wrote:

thedisneyspirit wrote:Disney's always been obsessed with Wicked. There's also a few similarities between that and PATF. All I'm saying is that if Disney's so desperate for making that film, they should just buy the rights for it and be happy.

That's exactly what I was thinking! But no, everyone's like, 'Noes! Disney can't make the movie, Universal owns the rights, you stupid idiots!'

You know, Wicked could work as an animated film than a live action one. If Disney buys the rights, I'll be okay with it.

But seriously, what's with the crazy Linda Woolverton hate that I've read in other fourms? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of hers but I don't get it.

ajmrowland wrote:

Prince Edward wrote:I do not think that Elle Fanning has the right look for the part, she looks to young and she is not... "pretty" enough, to sound a bit shallow and superficial. I also don't understand why they could not make her clothes more like those in the classic film and why they had to change the names of the three fairies Flora, Fauna and Merryweather. Just to let Linda Woolverton come up with foolish new names, just like she did for all the characters in Alice in Wonderland?

I dont think Elle fanning is too young. Especially since Aurora is supposed to be 16.

I know, but Aurora does look older then 16 in the original classic. She looks like a grown woman, while Elle Fanning looks like a girl. The actor playing prince Philip in Maleficent also looks to young in my opininon. Disney should have used actors in their early 20s.

That's the thing with this one I think - they have made Maleficent look and sound so much like the original design and Eleanor Audley, that it is odd to see other characters not look the same as their original animated counterparts.

I suppose Alice had no resemblance to the animated film, so it was easier to disassociate the two films, whereas this one is somewhere in between.

And I agree about the odd names too ! Why bother ?

I, too, thought (well, hoped!) the new fairy names were just disguise names like Briar Rose.

And I agree with you a lot, atlantica!

Well, one postive in my opinion, is that the art direction here is understated compared to Oz: TGAP and Alice.

I know I repeated this question twice now: But what is up with the Linda Woolverton hate? Not only on this forum, but others as well.

Musical Master wrote:Well, one postive in my opinion, is that the art direction here is understated compared to Oz: TGAP and Alice.

I know I repeated this question twice now: But what is up with the Linda Woolverton hate? Not only on this forum, but others as well.

I feel the more pronounced art direction in the other movies was justified by the worlds they were creating and, in some cases, previous adaptations.

Her Alice screenplay and, I can't quite remember, but she said a couple things to the press that inadvertently emphasized her lack of talent and understanding of some of the material.

I'm indifferent.

Disney Duster wrote:I, too, thought (well, hoped!) the new fairy names were just disguise names like Briar Rose.

Well, according to their character description the fairies in this movie are 'three neglectful and superficial pixies who end up taking care of Aurora'. Which, as all of you know, is nothing like the characters in the animated movie. They were caring and loved Aurora.

So my guess is Disney didn't want people to think of the fairies in the animated movie as 'neglectful and superficial', so to distance the characters in 'Malificent' from Flora, Fauna and Merryweather they changed the names.

I could be totally wrong though! I'm actually hoping the new names are disguise names, since that's a pretty good idea.

ajmrowland wrote:

Musical Master wrote:Well, one postive in my opinion, is that the art direction here is understated compared to Oz: TGAP and Alice.

I know I repeated this question twice now: But what is up with the Linda Woolverton hate? Not only on this forum, but others as well.

I feel the more pronounced art direction in the other movies was justified by the worlds they were creating and, in some cases, previous adaptations.

Her Alice screenplay and, I can't quite remember, but she said a couple things to the press that inadvertently emphasized her lack of talent and understanding of some of the material.

I'm indifferent.

Me too, Linda Woolverton has written some good stuff; she worked on the animation screenplay for BatB, for animated TV shows and in the underrated movie Homeward Bound (which she co-wrote with Caroline Thompson). I know I'm in the minority, but her screenplay for Alice wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I agree that the leaked script for Maleficent was quite bad. I guess she likes it when someone else works with her (Paul Dini of course).

http://i.imgur.com/UV1FApy.jpg

Moderator's Note:

Please consult our forum's Rules & Guidelines

Use of foul or offensive language is not acceptable nor is engaging in hate speech of any kind.

Oh, the ending of Linda's script for Alice is really awkard when you realize the bad history of the trade wars with China. If there is any sort of optimistic something from Maleficent is that Linda probably revised her own script since the leak which was, if I remember, was last year.

Paul Dini is the shining beam of light in a grey sky, though I heard a stupid rumor that Paul is not writing for the movie, that he only provided a treatment from the 90's that Linda based her script on. Yeah right.

I saw the trailer before Frozen. It looks like a sob story. There can't be any good end for Maleficent who's life was ruined by some stupid king trying to play god.