DVDizzy Forum

There's going to be a Maleficent calender in April, I would want one.

Musical Master wrote:There's going to be a Maleficent calender in April, I would want one.

That's awesome! Are there any pics? i'd love one, too

Some new pictures of the Maleficent dolls, includes (human) Divial (played by Sam Riley). No Maleficent doll with the wings though.

http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-mal ... fic-69345/

The designs...are so crappily dissapointing. Except Aurora's crown. That's beautiful.

And why couldn't Linda Woolverton keep his name Diablo? >:( Sounded too evil? Well Maleficent takes on the role of evil so it shouldn't matter! Maleficent could even do it jokingly! Sigh...

Disney Duster wrote:The designs...are so crappily dissapointing. Except Aurora's crown. That's beautiful.

And why couldn't Linda Woolverton keep his name Diablo? >:( Sounded too evil? Well Maleficent takes on the role of evil so it shouldn't matter! Maleficent could even do it jokingly! Sigh...

Who knows?
Why'd they have the need to change Maleficent into a young, misunderstood girl who was betrayed and had her heart broken? Quite a far cry from the original Mistress of all Evil, if you ask me...

And the same goes for the thee fairies! Change their names, and turn them into Umbridge-esque triplets! Why'd they have to mess with them?

Why did they have to mess with anything?

I love coming to this thread to see post after post of endless bitching about things that really truly...don't matter that much. So the name is Diaval instead of Diablo, a name which he is never referred to in the original film anyway, so by all means take a liberty with that one. I much prefer this name because it is way more subtle (one thing Linda Woolverton managed to make subtle in the original script) than the literal Spanish word for devil. In fact I think this name will sound much better than Maleficent referring to a grown man as Diablo which could, in theory, elicit some laughter.

The fact is, this is not the same movie as the original, nor should it be. To continue to moan and bitch about every minute change isn't going to help. It's much more enjoyable to appreciate the things that we get (like the design of Maleficent is basically the same as the original, only adapted for the style of the movie) than to complain about things that are different, because it doesn't help and only serves to foster negative attitudes.

"Wow look how great Angelina looks! The black outfit is so cool!"

Is a much more enjoyable mindset than...

"I can't believe there is a portion of Maleficent's neck showing! This movie is officially garbage!"

lord-of-sith wrote:I love coming to this thread to see post after post of endless bitching about things that really truly...don't matter that much. So the name is Diaval instead of Diablo, a name which he is never referred to in the original film anyway, so by all means take a liberty with that one. I much prefer this name because it is way more subtle (one thing Linda Woolverton managed to make subtle in the original script) than the literal Spanish word for devil. In fact I think this name will sound much better than Maleficent referring to a grown man as Diablo which could, in theory, elicit some laughter.

The fact is, this is not the same movie as the original, nor should it be. To continue to moan and bitch about every minute change isn't going to help. It's much more enjoyable to appreciate the things that we get (like the design of Maleficent is basically the same as the original, only adapted for the style of the movie) than to complain about things that are different, because it doesn't help and only serves to foster negative attitudes.

"Wow look how great Angelina looks! The black outfit is so cool!"

Is a much more enjoyable mindset than...

"I can't believe there is a portion of Maleficent's neck showing! This movie is officially garbage!"

This!

Except for the fact that it feels like Disney has grown tired of the original movie(and characters), and took it upon themselves to fix that which isn't broken...

The movie looks good. I'm not a fan of Angelina Jolie, but I'll give her credit: She looks great.

But the thing is: They're messing with a character I love. Call me ignorant if you want, but I don't like it.

Kraken Guard wrote:But the thing is: They're messing with a character I love. Call me ignorant if you want, but I don't like it.

But they're not. Disney is not going back in time to change or erase the animated Maleficent. She'll still exist (and her fans will see more merchandise for her now). This is just a new adaptation. Sure, you don't have to like it, but no one is messing with your preferred version of the character. Glenn Close didn't destroy or replace the toon Cruella, there is just more than one version in the world now.

As that bitch in Pete's Dragon sings, "There's room for everyone in this world, so shut up and make some room" ...I'm a little fuzzy on the exact lyrics, but that's the gist of it.

DancingCrab wrote:

Kraken Guard wrote:But the thing is: They're messing with a character I love. Call me ignorant if you want, but I don't like it.

But they're not. Disney is not going back in time to change or erase the animated Maleficent. She'll still exist (and her fans will see more merchandise for her now). This is just a new adaptation. Sure, you don't have to like it, but no one is messing with your preferred version of the character. Glenn Close didn't destroy or replace the toon Cruella, there is just more than one version in the world now.

As that bitch in Pete's Dragon sings, "There's room for everyone in this world, so shut up and make some room" ...I'm a little fuzzy on the exact lyrics, but that's the gist of it.

My thoughts exactly. The classic animated versions of Maleficent and Cruella are still here and still popular. Jolie is going to be really good in the role.

Musical Master wrote:

DancingCrab wrote: But they're not. Disney is not going back in time to change or erase the animated Maleficent. She'll still exist (and her fans will see more merchandise for her now). This is just a new adaptation. Sure, you don't have to like it, but no one is messing with your preferred version of the character. Glenn Close didn't destroy or replace the toon Cruella, there is just more than one version in the world now.

As that bitch in Pete's Dragon sings, "There's room for everyone in this world, so shut up and make some room" ...I'm a little fuzzy on the exact lyrics, but that's the gist of it.

My thoughts exactly. The classic animated versions of Maleficent and Cruella are still here and still popular. Jolie is going to be really good in the role.

Yes this exactly. Glad we are in agreement

But they didn't give Cruella a sob story, nor did they make everyone else the antagonist.
Then again, the live action adaption of 101 Dalmatians wasn't exactly focused on Cruella De Vil.
She was still the highlight of the movie, and she did steal the spotlight.

Now, admittedly I'm not quite sure how successful the live action adaption for Dalmatians was. I never really see any merchandise for the live action adaption.

As far as Glenn Close goes, I think she was awesome as Cruella, and I'll admit: I do prefer Glenn Closes' Cruella over the Animated. Though the animated was pretty great as well.
Though I'm not sure if people agree or disagree there...

Maleficent did not need to be made into a sympathetic anti-hero.
They're applying the whole woman-had-her-heart-broken-so-that's-why-she's-evil story onto a character that doesn't need it.

Again, I'll avoid mentioning what they've done to everyone else, with the exception of Aurora.

It's not the same Maleficent that I grew up with, but everyone is treating it like it's canon. That this is officially why Maleficent is the way she is, and I disagree with it. To the high heavens and beyond.

Nobody said I had to agree with it. But like I said: Everyone is treating it like it's the official story.

And with how much hype the movie has been getting, I fear going onto sites like DeviantArt, or Tumblr - Even here, and reading comments saying 'WOW! Angelina Jolie's performance was amazing! She even blew the doors off the original!'

If the movie becomes a success, more Angelina Jolie. Less of the animated.
Look at the films they've done: The whole hand-drawn vs. CGI.
With how successful the CGI films have proven, they've gone and deemed hand-drawn animation irrelevant. Another thing I will argue against, though I'd like to save that for another time, maybe?

They might not do away with the original animated Maleficent, but I wouldn't doubt that they'd give Angelina Jolie's version more time in the spotlight.
I know it's downright difficult to find the animated Maleficent on Tumblr now...
Everything is Angelina Jolie.

Kraken Guard wrote:Everyone is treating it like it's the official story.

I guarantee that I'm not treating it as such. To me, this is just a different adaptation being told by a completely different set of storytellers. It could end up being good (Pirates), or end up being bad (Oz) (or even just "meh" like Alice). I've also yet to see anyone claim that Jolie outshines the original, in fact, the thing I am most seeing is concern that our beloved villainess might not be done justice. All I've heard is that she looks and sounds great in the trailers, which is true, but that's hardly a guarantee she'll be awesome as a whole in the movie or can save a terrible script in the end.

Just remember that there are some pretty psychotic people on the internet, especially tumblr, so don't pay much attention to the ones spouting off nonsense that the two films are connonly linked in any way other than one being the inspiration for the other.

I personally don't believe animated Maleficent has real horns under her cowl like Jolie's does.

DancingCrab wrote:Just remember that there are some pretty psychotic people on the internet...

... What about me?
Definitely not bringing up the whole rift between Turbo-Fans and Vanellope-Fans.
Honestly, both sides can be pretty vicious, though I think I've seen more hostility from the Vanellope-Fans. Oddly enough.

Nevermind!

It's not even people on the internet, it's the way Disney is advertising it.
Of course, how could they advertise it any other way?
She is the main star. They can't exactly advertise her as the villain...

But it just all rubs off on me in all the wrong ways. It's frustrating, and it's worrisome.

Oddly enough, I was perfectly fine with Oz: The Great and Powerful.

This is obviously not cannon with the original. There's no way it could be. Certain events are completely different.

I don't know if we've been seeing different advertising, but I've gotten the impression thus far that Disney is advertising Maleficent as if she is a villain. No where in any of the trailers does she appear to be bright and chipper and easy to take the side of. In fact, with the exception of the line "and I cannot keep you from it" in the Disney Channel sneak peak, everything about this characterization appears in line with the original.

And that brings me to the most important point. Jolie's version of the character will never overshadow the original because it is BASED off of the original. It's like food. For example, cheescake. Some people like different flavored cheesecake, but when you hear the word "cheesecake", you are probably going to think of the original New York style plain flavor. Does that make any sense? There are some people (though they are few) who, when they hear the name Maleficent, think of the Once Upon a Time version, and that version is 100x worse than anything Jolie is going to give us. It'll be fine. Of course Jolie's version is going to be the rage at this time, but in 10 years the original will still be the main focus and, best scenario, Jolie's is seen as a great interpretation of a classic character.

Kraken Guard wrote:

DancingCrab wrote:Just remember that there are some pretty psychotic people on the internet...

... What about me?

Those figures actually look good. I like the bottom of Aurora's dress on that figure. It is pretty and clever.

Kraken Guard wrote:And the same goes for the thee fairies! Change their names, and turn them into Umbridge-esque triplets! Why'd they have to mess with them?

I agree she didn't have to do that! She could have had them be good, and keep their original names, not being that good at taking care of Aurora even though they want to, and just not understand Maleficent/think she's evil. But you know, you don't have anything to worry about this Maleficent overtaking the original Maleficent.

I do wanna say though, what was bad to me about the leaked script was this: You know who all the good characters are and who the bad characters are and what they do? Let's just reverse all that! Oh, and what I also thought was bad was the whole half-human half-fairy thing. King Stephen and Aurora were humans, and should stay humans!

One thing I did like though was that Maleficent still cursed Aurora to die. But I heard that at the D23 preview she only cursed her to sleep till true love's kiss, taking away the fairies gift! In this case I hope the leaked script's idea stays.

lord-of-sith wrote:I love coming to this thread to see post after post of endless bitching about things that really truly...don't matter that much. So the name is Diaval instead of Diablo, a name which he is never referred to in the original film anyway, so by all means take a liberty with that one. I much prefer this name because it is way more subtle (one thing Linda Woolverton managed to make subtle in the original script) than the literal Spanish word for devil. In fact I think this name will sound much better than Maleficent referring to a grown man as Diablo which could, in theory, elicit some laughter.

The fact is, this is not the same movie as the original, nor should it be. To continue to moan and bitch about every minute change isn't going to help. It's much more enjoyable to appreciate the things that we get (like the design of Maleficent is basically the same as the original, only adapted for the style of the movie) than to complain about things that are different, because it doesn't help and only serves to foster negative attitudes.

"Wow look how great Angelina looks! The black outfit is so cool!"

Is a much more enjoyable mindset than...

"I can't believe there is a portion of Maleficent's neck showing! This movie is officially garbage!"

I know you don't want anyone to down you enthusiasm for this movie, but dude, you can't dictate what opinions we can and can't express!

If you want to hear some positive things, I do have four:

For one, I do agree and I'm glad that Maleficent looks as close to the original as she does. I was worried she would be in the infamous gift-giving scene with the long hair and real horns we saw in the early pictures.

I said this already, but I like how the fairies look like their original parts but their clothes are made out of flowers.

I like that Maleficent will have green flames like the original instead of white flames like the leaked script.

And I sort of like Aurora's new blue (or white or gray?) dress, it just need the off-the shoulder collar for me to think it is close enough to the original one to even be inspired by it.

Disney Duster wrote:But you know, you don't have anything to worry about this Maleficent overtaking the original Maleficent.

Sure there is. There is always that lingering possibility.
As I said before: They might not erase the original Maleficent completely, but they might show the new one more often. Maybe to a point where they might as well replace the original with the new one...

Not to mention that whole thing about Angelina Jolie being the first thing people think of whenever they hear 'Maleficent'.

Hell, there are some people out there who think 'Once Upon a Dream' was an original song BY Lana Del Ray...

Am I the only one who thinks Jolie could be a good Morticia in a new Addams Family film?