Maleficent (Live-Action)

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
Tristy
Special Edition
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

Post by Tristy »

Toky wrote:It sounds like Linda Woolverton has gone wild again....Why does Disney have so much faith in her...I mean...writing a script for an animated movie doesn't mean she's capable of writing a script for a live action one. This whole 'Queen Ulla'(what a horrible name btw) thing and 'pixie king' sound to complicated and far-fetched.
Actually i'm scared of what Disney is going to do with the future projects of the live action Snowwhite and Cinderella.....
Yeah why does Disney have so much faith in her? I mean it's not like she did the script for an animated feature that was the first to be nominated for Best Picture, the highest grossing animated film or a mediocre Tim Burton film that still turned in a huge profit.

Oh wait! She did.
Wonderlicious
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4660
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Wonderlicious »

I have to be honest and say that I really don't care about the name and background changes because I really don't care about the film any more. It always came across as some gimmicky attempt to cash in on the "updated fairy tale" craze sweeping mainstream cinema at the moment, but now it looks increasingly like glorified fan-fiction to boot. I don't think that it also helps that Disney have been unwise enough, and arguably downright arrogant, to name the film Maleficent and therefore make the film seem as though it's a remake of their Sleeping Beauty as opposed to being an alternate take on a classic story with no clear author (or maybe make it seem as though they created it? Meh, more likely...). As the last few posts show, it's enough to ruffle the feathers of a lot of Disney fans, and I can imagine it could confuse a lot of regular moviegoers as well.

And for the record, I have similar negative feelings towards Oz: The Great and Powerful, which I can definitely imagine disappointing at the box office. :|

Anyway, many apologies for the negativity. I hope these cute, off-topic pictures of animals makes up for it! :D

Image
Image
Image

And a funny picture that's a bit more on-topic...

Image
:p
Last edited by Wonderlicious on Tue May 08, 2012 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19883
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

Tristy wrote:Yeah why does Disney have so much faith in her? I mean it's not like she did the script for an animated feature that was the first to be nominated for Best Picture.
If you watched any bonus features or read any articles about the making of Beauty and the Beast, you would know that Disney's story team is mostly responsible for BatB's success. When the team initially boarded Linda's script unaltered, it was a catastrophe. It wasn't working at all. They had to make numerous changes, to which Linda was resistant and unwilling to co-operate, to make the screenplay work.

As for her work on Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it wasn't mediocre, it was plain awful; it didn't earn a rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes for nothing. The film's financial success is irrelevant. A lot of bad movies become box office hits.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Tristy
Special Edition
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

Post by Tristy »

Sotiris wrote:
Tristy wrote:Yeah why does Disney have so much faith in her? I mean it's not like she did the script for an animated feature that was the first to be nominated for Best Picture.
If you watched any bonus features or read any articles about the making of Beauty and the Beast, you would know that Disney's story team is mostly responsible for BatB's success. When the team boarded Linda's script unaltered, it was a catastrophe. It wasn't working at all. They had to make a lot of changes, to which Linda was resistant and unwilling to co-operate, to make the screenplay work.
Wow! I did not know that. I guess she always had a bit of a stubborn streak then.

In some of the interviews for Alice, she's kind of come off as a little egotistical. Like what was it she said? "I couldn't write the nonsense if I didn't think I could."

Well, if by nonsense, you mean coming up with stupid names that end up being useless (They keep calling the "Tarrant" the "Hatter" anyway) and phony language that doesn't feel at all lifted from the source material, then you've succeeded. But as far as illogical nonsense goes? Sorry. But Lewis Carroll was a master of it.
DisneyDude2010
Special Edition
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:48 am

Post by DisneyDude2010 »

Wonderlicious wrote:
And for the record, I have similar negative feelings towards Oz: The Great and Powerful, which I can definitely imagine disappointing at the box office. :|
I think Oz the Great and Powerful sounds a lot more promising than Maleficent. The Oz film is actually based on the books in the series.
Image
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney
Wonderlicious
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4660
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Wonderlicious »

Sotiris wrote:If you watched any bonus features or read any articles about the making of Beauty and the Beast, you would know that Disney's story team is mostly responsible for BatB's success. When the team boarded Linda's script unaltered, it was a catastrophe. It wasn't working at all. They had to make numerous changes, to which Linda was resistant and unwilling to co-operate, to make the screenplay work.

As for her work on Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it wasn't mediocre, it was plain awful; it didn't earn a rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes for nothing. The film's financial success is irrelevant. A lot of bad movies become box office hits.
In Linda Woolverton's defence regarding Beauty and the Beast, I was under the impression that she was initially at odds with the story team simply because she didn't understand the storyboard process for animation. Of course, that is Disney's official take on the story. With regards to story, I also think that Howard Ashman should be credited for the film's success on account of the changes he suggested to liven the story.

As for Alice in Wonderland, I didn't think it was terrible, but I was under the impression that she didn't really get the source material she was adapting, even compared to previous film-makers (if anything, consider the battle scenes).
DisneyDude2010 wrote:
Wonderlicious wrote:
And for the record, I have similar negative feelings towards Oz: The Great and Powerful, which I can definitely imagine disappointing at the box office. :|
I think Oz the Great and Powerful sounds a lot more promising than Maleficent. The Oz film is actually based on the books in the series.
True, true. But I honestly think it would never exist had Alice in Wonderland not been a success. I can't help but think it's cashing in on a current trend. I've also become less of a fan towards Oz within the past few years. As far as the books are concerned, The Wizard of Oz is a classic, but I really the sequels get more and more clueless and childish as the series progresses. I'd agree that MGM's The Wizard of Oz is a classic, but it has become so ingrained in people's minds that it becomes hard for people to accept an Oz as depicted by MGM (hence why Wicked, which is set in an Oz similar to MGM's, has been successful, while things like Return to Oz or Tin Man weren't so much).
Last edited by Wonderlicious on Tue May 08, 2012 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DisneyDude2010
Special Edition
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:48 am

Post by DisneyDude2010 »

‘Maleficent’ Casting Roundup; Elle Fanning & Sharlto Copley Confirmed
Both acclaimed character actor Sharlto Copley and teenage starlet Elle Fanning (Super 8) were previously reported as being in talks to play pivotal roles in Maleficent.

Richardson will play Maleficent’s disapproving aunt, Queen Ulla, while Staunton will play Knotgrass, one of the pixies (fairies, in traditional Sleeping Beauty retellings) who cares for Princess Aurora (Fanning) after she is cursed to an eternal slumber on her 16th birthday by the film’s magical namesake (Jolie). One of the other pixies, Flittle, will be portrayed by BAFTA nominee Lesley Manville – who, like Staunton, is a frequent collaborator with director Mike Leigh

Rounding out the Maleficent cast (so far) are the likes of Kenneth Cranham (Hellraiser II, Hot Fuzz) as a human king who desires to conquer the fairy kingdom, Sam Riley (Brighton Rock) as Diaval, Maleficent’s raven who changes occasionally into human form – and (according to Variety) Underworld: Awakening‘s India Eisley, up to play a young version of Maleficent during the film’s opening act.

Furthermore, Copley’s character will actually be that of Stefan – the “half-human, half-fairy bastard son” of Cranham’s character – and not King Stefan, as previously reported. (One imagines comparisons to the actor’s District 9 transformed “half-breed” character are inevitable.)
Link http://screenrant.com/maleficent-cast-e ... dy-170148/


some clarification :)
Last edited by DisneyDude2010 on Tue May 08, 2012 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney
Tristy
Special Edition
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:18 pm

Post by Tristy »

Yeah. She even said that the original Disney version didn't get the idea. Um...say what?!!? I know that film has had its share of haters but regardless of what the opinion is, at least it understood the material.
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19883
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

Wonderlicious wrote:In Linda Woolverton's defence regarding Beauty and the Beast, I was under the impression that she was initially at odds with the story team simply because she didn't understand the storyboard process for animation.
They just say that to sugarcoat the fact that she was full of herself and didn't want anyone changing her "amazing" script.
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Wonderlicious
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4660
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Wonderlicious »

Sotiris wrote:They just say that to sugarcoat the fact that she was full of herself and didn't want anyone changing her "amazing" script.
Hence why I mentioned it was Disney's take on what happened. ;)

P.S. It looks like you're popular over on Photobucket! :p
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19883
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

Wonderlicious wrote:P.S. It looks like you're popular over on Photobucket! :p
:lol: Stupid bandwidth limitation... :P
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Toky
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:18 am
Location: the Netherlands

Post by Toky »

Tristy wrote:
Sotiris wrote: If you watched any bonus features or read any articles about the making of Beauty and the Beast, you would know that Disney's story team is mostly responsible for BatB's success. When the team boarded Linda's script unaltered, it was a catastrophe. It wasn't working at all. They had to make a lot of changes, to which Linda was resistant and unwilling to co-operate, to make the screenplay work.
Wow! I did not know that. I guess she always had a bit of a stubborn streak then.

In some of the interviews for Alice, she's kind of come off as a little egotistical. Like what was it she said? "I couldn't write the nonsense if I didn't think I could."

Well, if by nonsense, you mean coming up with stupid names that end up being useless (They keep calling the "Tarrant" the "Hatter" anyway) and phony language that doesn't feel at all lifted from the source material, then you've succeeded. But as far as illogical nonsense goes? Sorry. But Lewis Carroll was a master of it.

Well what i just wanted to state is that there's a difference between an animated film of 60 minutes and one that lasts 120 minutes and is live action. Linda screwed up the script for Alice in wonderland, even though Lewis book is like crazy, she got away with it too easily in my opinion.
I didn't like the fact that it was a sequel, but even then, it could have been made in to a proper story, with a good script and backstory. I think they (and not to blame only Linda, since a movie gets made by a load of people) just picked pieces from the books (even some who were used for the animated 50's movie), sewed them together and put in some weird dialogues to cover up the fact that the story was just dull... :P

I'm not hoping Maleficent is heading the same way, with all these adjustments and unnecessary complex backstories...
User avatar
DisneyJedi
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3633
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm

Post by DisneyJedi »

You know, unless I'm wrong, she also did the script for the stage versions of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King and look how those turned out. ;)
User avatar
ajmrowland
Signature Collection
Posts: 8177
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Appleton, WI

Post by ajmrowland »

Toky wrote:It sounds like Linda Woolverton has gone wild again....Why does Disney have so much faith in her...I mean...writing a script for an animated movie doesn't mean she's capable of writing a script for a live action one. This whole 'Queen Ulla'(what a horrible name btw) thing and 'pixie king' sound to complicated and far-fetched.
Actually i'm scared of what Disney is going to do with the future projects of the live action Snowwhite and Cinderella.....
I dont doubt that she's lost her touch, but after seeing Terry Rossio's column, I have a hard time blaming anyone but the studios these days for poor scripts.
Image
User avatar
lord-of-sith
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:03 pm
Gender: Male (He/Him/His)

Post by lord-of-sith »

As a huge Maleficent fan, seeing these new characters and how they are diverting from the source material does worry me a bit, but I have faith overall. Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, and Miranda Richardson are all first class actors who are very respected. Their choice of projects shows a lot of taste and quality, so I doubt they would blindly go into this project without being sure it wouldn't be rubbish. I feel like I remember an article where Jolie herself said she was very impressed with the script (read into that what you will). These new names do seem scarily reminiscent of the Alice names, though those characters didn't have names initially. Until I see more, I remain optimistic, as the idea and cast are absolutely first rate thus far.
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

Toky wrote:Actually i'm scared of what Disney is going to do with the future projects of the live action Snowwhite and Cinderella.....
Linda Woolverton is not touching those, hence they will be safe and probably better. ;)
Image
Disneyphile
Special Edition
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 2:27 am
Location: San Jose CA

Post by Disneyphile »

Juno Temple is joining the cast of Maleficent, Disney’s live-action retelling of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale.

Angelina Jolie is playing the title character in the fantasy that tells the story from the point of view of the fairy-witch who cursed Aurora to a permanent sleep on her 16th birthday. Robert Stromberg is directing.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... visionblog
User avatar
totallyminnie86
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Contact:

Post by totallyminnie86 »

Oh wow, I am SO behind on my Disney news. I saw a link about Malificent on a sidebar of a movie site and thought I should get straight over here.

Ok, so it's happening, which is awesome. Gosh, we've been talking about this movie for years now! I don't know what rock I"ve been living under not knowing someone as famous as Angelina was going to be in it. I can see it, she could work it for sure. And I think the Aussie kid they got does look pretty Prince Phillip-y, lol.. As for Elle Fanning, she seems like a great choice for Aurora. Very ethereal.

I'll just add my 2 cents and say, that like almost everyone else, wtf is up with the weird name changes/plot twists. Bastard son? "Pixies"? Malificent's aunt or whatnot? Hmmm.... the only real problem I see here that is crucial, is the changing of Flora, Fauna and Merriweather's names. I mean, this is clearly and blatantly intended to be based off Disney's own adaptation... if you base it around your previous interpretations of characters, why change it? You made them in the first place. Odd decision there, oh well.

Excited but a bit more skeptical about this project. After the mess that was Alice in Wonderland I'm hoping Woolverton will do something better (please!!!!!!!!!!)
User avatar
Lnds500
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1103
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:14 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Post by Lnds500 »

Image
User avatar
disneyprincess11
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4363
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:46 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by disneyprincess11 »

Lnds500 wrote:Image
WHOA! She looks alike like Malificent!
Post Reply