DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 59  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:50 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:48 pm
Posts: 804
Disney Duster wrote:
Oh, but did anyone catch this?:
Quote:
Sharlto Copley is Stefan, the half-human, half-fairy bastard son of the human king.

Um, bastard son? This may be the first time I know of Disney ever indicating that you can have babies with people other than your husband or wife...?!!!!


Maleficent is ment to be an adaption of an "Evil Fairy Godmother" from the original tale. Ehh... I hope it doesn't go down the line of Maleficent being Aurora's Grandmother and evidently Stefan being her son :?

Edit-
Maleficent
Quote:
Richardson will play Queen Ulla, a fairy queen who is Maleficent’s aunt — and dislikes her niece.


Link- http://www.moviehole.net/201254032casting-roundup-cornish-lewis-richardson-liotta-cromwell-more

I give up! Is she a Fairy or a Pixie? and How can a Pixie be an aunt to Maleficent??

_________________
Image
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:00 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 782
Location: The Netherlands
Disney Duster wrote:
Oh, but did anyone catch this?:
Quote:
Sharlto Copley is Stefan, the half-human, half-fairy bastard son of the human king.

Um, bastard son? This may be the first time I know of Disney ever indicating that you can have babies with people other than your husband or wife...?!!!!


Wait. So Stefan isn't just the king, but the king's son? Who is his mother? Malificent? That would mean that, if Stefan is still Aurora's father, Aurora is Malificent's granddaughter :?

Like someone said before, I was also hoping this would just be a retelling of the Disney movie with more scene's involving Malificent and her backstory but it looks like it will be a completly different story.

I am now genuinly curious what the story will be. I guess we have to accept this won't be like the Disney movie and enjoy whatever it's going to be now. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:14 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8028
Location: Appleton, WI
Sotiris wrote:
supertalies wrote:
I mean, the movie is called 'Maleficent', so it's obviously based on the Disney movie. Also, why keep the name of the king, who plays a smaller part than the fairies in the Diney movie, but change their names?


I know. Why does Disney keep doing these sort of stuff? :roll:


remember, not all name-changes are corporate decisions.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:39 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2019
Well, however you feel about the name changes, Imelda Staunton is perfect casting.

_________________
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:34 pm
Posts: 329
Location: Ireland
I read a link on another forum that in fact Miranda Richardson's character will not be one of the three fairies or pixies or whatever. She will indeed play Maleficent's aunt.

Imelda Staunton and Lesley Manville are the two actresses set to play Flittle and Knotgrass.

On the bright side, they have cast more mature actresses in the roles of the fairies/pixies so far, which indicates that the characters will most likely be at least based on the three good fairies from the original film.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:18 am
Posts: 201
Location: the Netherlands
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.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 12:39 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:53 pm
Posts: 2937
Prince Edward wrote:
Perhaps this is Linda Woolverton's way of showing off, just like when she/they came up with names for many of the characters in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland...


Yeah, but the Wonderland characters didn't really have actual names to begin with, just titles or something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:18 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:18 pm
Posts: 606
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:28 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:47 am
Posts: 4516
Location: UK
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

_________________
-Joe

Blog | Deviantart


Last edited by Wonderlicious on Tue May 08, 2012 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7849
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.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:39 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:18 pm
Posts: 606
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:40 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:48 pm
Posts: 804
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:46 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:47 am
Posts: 4516
Location: UK
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).

_________________
-Joe

Blog | Deviantart


Last edited by Wonderlicious on Tue May 08, 2012 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:50 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:48 pm
Posts: 804
‘Maleficent’ Casting Roundup; Elle Fanning & Sharlto Copley Confirmed
Quote:
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-elle-fanning-sharlto-copley-sandy-170148/


some clarification :)

_________________
Image
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney


Last edited by DisneyDude2010 on Tue May 08, 2012 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:51 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:18 pm
Posts: 606
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:52 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7849
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.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:02 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:47 am
Posts: 4516
Location: UK
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

_________________
-Joe

Blog | Deviantart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:05 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7849
Wonderlicious wrote:
P.S. It looks like you're popular over on Photobucket! :p


:lol: Stupid bandwidth limitation... :P

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 3:14 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:18 am
Posts: 201
Location: the Netherlands
Tristy wrote:
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.



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...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:04 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:53 pm
Posts: 2937
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. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 59  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MeerkatKombat, moviefan12 and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group