DVDizzy.com

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

It is currently Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:10 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1680 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 84  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:32 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 8517
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: 669
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: 815
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: 4577
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: 815
‘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: 669
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: 8517
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: 4577
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: 8517
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: 240
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: 3216
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:10 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:19 am
Posts: 8159
Location: Appleton, WI
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 6:26 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:03 pm
Posts: 2100
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:58 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7452
Location: America
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:52 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 4:27 am
Posts: 646
Location: San Jose CA
Quote:
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:15 pm
Posts: 403
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!!!!!!!!!!)

_________________
http://jemgirl.wordpress.com
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:14 pm
Posts: 1098
Location: Athens, Greece
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:39 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Maryland, USA
Lnds500 wrote:
Image


WHOA! She looks alike like Malificent!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:40 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:14 pm
Posts: 1098
Location: Athens, Greece
that bone-cheek is slightly scary though..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:50 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:20 pm
Posts: 1008
Is this fan-made or a legit production photo?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1680 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 84  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DisneyEra, Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 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