DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:Oh no they didn't have Merryweather give the sleep and true love gift they had Maleficent do it. Yet another huge change from the original movie. The leaked script actually got that one right and now they f***ed that one up too. There was no need. *sigh*

Victurtle wrote:My question is however, how are they relating it back to the 1959 classic? So far the line "what really happened" suggests that the former movie was full of lies, which rather bothers me.

It also seems to me the 1959 film worked as the version King Stefan wanted people to believe...

Well I have to say I am still really looking forward to this; it seems Angelina really wants to pay respect to the original character, just show how she got to be there.

Very excited, and again, I hope she will have a cover story in one of the high fashion magazines.

Also, does anyone know when she was filming this? Must have been way before her surgeries, yes? As I remember complaining on here how long it was taking from filming to release...

New movie still

Great. Now I'm worried that the leaked script is the official one.

DisneyJedi wrote:Great. Now I'm worried that the leaked script is the official one.

I have no doubt that there have been a few revisions to the leaked script, however I'm also even more sure that a good chunk of it is the final film to be honest.

I was upset and wanting to boycott it, but I'll see it after thinking about it as it could be something to enjoy during a matinee for $4. However I'm not super hyped to see it and don't have that much enthusiasm for the movie either.

According to some previous discussion on this thread, several revisions were made.

I hope those revisions involve changing Stefan so that he's not an insensitive asshat, making the fairies/pixies not be clueless ninnies, Maleficent changing into the dragon AND Phillip being the one to break the curse.

DisneyJedi wrote:I hope those revisions involve changing Stefan so that he's not an insensitive asshat, making the fairies/pixies not be clueless ninnies, Maleficent changing into the dragon AND Phillip being the one to break the curse.

So this is basically "make Maleficent look more wonderful, the movie. "

thelittleursula wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:I hope those revisions involve changing Stefan so that he's not an insensitive asshat, making the fairies/pixies not be clueless ninnies, Maleficent changing into the dragon AND Phillip being the one to break the curse.

So this is basically "make Maleficent look more wonderful, the movie. "

If you mean 'portraying her as good all along' then yeah, pretty much...

I don't understand why all villain films try to do that. I mean, it's not automatically a bad route to go (and, in the case of this film, the pagan v. Christian idea of thinking followers of a different religion are evil seems like they it could've been interesting), but why can't they ever just make a film about a character who gradually becomes a villain/tragically falls into evil and sin a la Dorian Gray?

To me, these kinds of films are very often lazy and unimaginative, only making classic villains less threatening and more passive. But I was aware that this was going to be the case with Maleficent from the beginning and I'm in for the same reason I always was--Angelina Jolie.

Am I missing something? There's is no further proof that the old script is the script to go by. The way the curse was altered (for better or for worse) is clearly different than the script, so using that line as evidence of the script being the same as the film holds no ground. Yes it was clearly a draft, but when Angelina Jolie says things like "You want to call me evil? Well you haven't even SEEN evil yet!" makes me pretty hopeful, as there was next to nothing in the old script to warrant that line being accurate.

Victurtle wrote:I justify the changes as fairy tales are naturally ever evolving. I imagine Disney's revision of the tale was as much as an upset as this one is to the Disney version. If any story is to be ever inconsistent or ret-conned, it's a fairy tale.

If you read the whole leaked script, you would know the original animated version was not nearly as unfaithful to its source material (the fairy tale) as this films is to its source material (the Disney animated film).

Victurtle wrote:My question is however, how are they relating it back to the 1959 classic? So far the line "what really happened" suggests that the former movie was full of lies, which rather bothers me.

Yes, that's bad too!

Disney Duster wrote:If you read the whole leaked script, you would know the original animated version was not nearly as unfaithful to its source material (the fairy tale) as this films is to its source material (the Disney animated film).

I haven't read the leaked script, but I think in order to have "Maleficent" be more unfaithful to the animated movie than the animated movie to the source material... well. There wouldn't be a lot of story left. I mean, come on, as much as I like the animated movie... what about the 100 year long sleep? That's one of the most iconic things I remember from the Grimm version from back when I was a kid. (I know the animated movie's said to be based on the Perrault version, but cutting off the whole ending with the monstrous mother-in-law also isn't faithfulness-to-source-material per se...)

Disney Duster wrote:

Victurtle wrote:I justify the changes as fairy tales are naturally ever evolving. I imagine Disney's revision of the tale was as much as an upset as this one is to the Disney version. If any story is to be ever inconsistent or ret-conned, it's a fairy tale.

If you read the whole leaked script, you would know the original animated version was not nearly as unfaithful to its source material (the fairy tale) as this films is to its source material (the Disney animated film).

Well that depends on which version you are referring to. I was thinking the version involving:

- SB pricking her finger because she's never seen a spindle before
- 100 year sleep
- prince reading about the legend of SB
- prince finding SB, tries and fails to wake her up. Sleeps with her anyway
- SB gives birth to twins in her sleep
- One of the babies looks for SB's breasts, instead suckles on her finger and unlodges the needle
- Wakes up, prince comes back. prince takes family to half ogre family.

But the point is there are many different versions, and Maleficent will simply be another to add to the list

Kraken Guard wrote:

thelittleursula wrote: So this is basically "make Maleficent look more wonderful, the movie. "

If you mean 'portraying her as good all along' then yeah, pretty much...

Nope. Just that she's better than everybody else. I mean Stefan being a asshat, the fairies being dumb, Aurora being sort of friends with her, instead of spending her life escaping from her, and Maleficent just no longer being a threatening villian that wanted Aurora dead, just a Mary Sue.

I still don't want to see this. If it's true Maleficent breaks the curse, no thank you. I could deal with indifferent fairies, I could deal with a crappy King but the whole 'true love's kiss' thing is something that has been part of the story since it's origins and shouldn't be changed.

Victurtle wrote: My question is however, how are they relating it back to the 1959 classic? So far the line "what really happened" suggests that the former movie was full of lies, which rather bothers me.

This really really bothers me. Maleficent is a villain - why is there a need to make her like-able? What next? The untold reason why the evil stepmother abused Cinderella. It's not needed. It's a fairy tale - good guys and bad guys, we don't need to blur lines. There doesn't need to be a reason why someone is evil in a fairy tale - they just are.

It is looking less and less likely I'll see this. Of course, all of the above is my own opinion and I don't begrudge anyone that does go see it. I'll be sticking with the animated film I adore. I do worry about what direction Disney is heading and I really hate anything that might interfere with films I love.

If this had to happen I would have preferred a 'Wicked/Oz the Great and Powerful' approach where everything happens before the time of Aurora. Maleficent's back story that doesn't interfere with the story of Sleeping Beauty.

New poster:

https://www.facebook.com/WaltDisneyStudios

Atlantica wrote:New poster:

https://www.facebook.com/WaltDisneyStudios

Ha, you beat me to it!



Source

Also, apparently there is a new trailer on the way! Yay! Do you remember that the original release date was for this month?

Interesting the take they are having with these posters; no overcrowding, and purely focusing on her. I thought that may have been just for the teaser posters, but clearly not.