DVDizzy Forum

Oh,okay,Disney Villain I don't know a lot about the parks (Like you know-I was just at Disneyland Paris in fall 2001 and since it was fall almost everything was close,no characters (I so wants picture with Ariel,Giselle,Aurora,Cinderella,Jasmine,Maleficent,Jafar and more ),no It's A Small World,but there's was still the Sleeping Beauty Castle,Pirates Of The Caribbean and more),what's Pirates and Princesses? you also take picture in this?.
I see your point but she says that when nobody believe in dreams she can be back to power so maybe nightmares does give her power?.

Jim Hill wrote another article on website domain names that Disney has registered:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hilll ... names.aspx

Not to mention the surprises. Those films you never, ever thought that you’d see Walt Disney Pictures put into development.Like ...

MALEFICENTMOVIE.COM

Which – I know – seems like kind of an odd choice. But let’s remember that – even as you read this – the Studio is shooting a “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” movie. And if Nicholas Cage can play the live-action version of Yensid, is it really such a stretch to think that some actress can strap on a horned headdress and play Sleeping Beauty’s nemesis?

I mean, Glenn Close did a pretty decent job with the live-action version of Cruella De Vil. So which modern day actress would you like to see step into the spotlight …and play the live-action version of Maleficent?

blackcauldron85 wrote:Jim Hill wrote another article on website domain names that Disney has registered:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hilll ... names.aspx

Not to mention the surprises. Those films you never, ever thought that you’d see Walt Disney Pictures put into development.Like ...

MALEFICENTMOVIE.COM

Which – I know – seems like kind of an odd choice. But let’s remember that – even as you read this – the Studio is shooting a “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” movie. And if Nicholas Cage can play the live-action version of Yensid, is it really such a stretch to think that some actress can strap on a horned headdress and play Sleeping Beauty’s nemesis?

I mean, Glenn Close did a pretty decent job with the live-action version of Cruella De Vil. So which modern day actress would you like to see step into the spotlight …and play the live-action version of Maleficent?

Thank you so much for posting the news Amy!!!!!!!!!! This would make my entire life! I wonder what the domain is for. It could be for a film, or maybe a theme park show or something like a line of direct to video films. very interesting. Thank you Disney!!!!!!!

Perhaps nothing more than a coincidence, but the TAG Blog posted also posted this yesterday:

I was able to get a look at some of the visual development for the next group of Toon Disney features (waay different than Tinkerbell) and my first reaction was: "That's going to make the Mouse a lot of money!"

Because it is a real commercial property.

(And no, I'm not going to say anything about what it is, since the company hasn't announced much about it yet.)

Would Lasseter allow for a "Disney's Villains" product/movie line?

Original article here.

Neal wrote:Perhaps nothing more than a coincidence, but the TAG Blog posted also posted this yesterday:

I was able to get a look at some of the visual development for the next group of Toon Disney features (waay different than Tinkerbell) and my first reaction was: "That's going to make the Mouse a lot of money!"

Because it is a real commercial property.

(And no, I'm not going to say anything about what it is, since the company hasn't announced much about it yet.)

Would Lasseter allow for a "Disney's Villains" product/movie line?

Original article here.

Very, very interesting! Thanks for posting. I knew Disney would have to continue the direct to video films. Those films are huge money makers, and I'm sure they've seen the effect not releasing any sequels has had on the company. Yes, most direct to video films are crap, but they ranked in the money. No matter how much of a love/hate relationship I have towards Lasseter, I do trust him. He's creative, but also understands that Disney is first and foremost a company. If he personally creates and oversees the production of new direct to video films (and I have no doubt that he will) then I can only imagine what kind of things are planned.

It would be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Who said anything about "Maleficent" being a cheapquel DTV?

Looks like a theatrical to me.

Rudy Matt wrote:Who said anything about "Maleficent" being a cheapquel DTV?

Looks like a theatrical to me.

First off I think it's important to understand that Disney has NOT stopped, and they won't stop producing direct to video films. As I've stated a few posts above, they're too much of a money make to stop making. Lasseter will however have complete say and creative authority over them. The crappy DTV's are gone, but there are many more quality DTV's in production.

I found this article, but i'm not sure how reliable the source is. I'd take it with a grain of salt: http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/index.p ... 512-222239

Meh. Disney's live-action hasn't interested me at all lately.

Underdog, Beverley Hills Chihuahua, Wild Hogs, The Hannah Montana Movie - all lame.

Upcoming? G- Force, Old Dogs - yawn!

Sorry to be so negative, but while Disney Animation has gotten a bail-out and seems to becoming more focused on the roots that made it so beloved, Disney hasn't produced a very good live-action film in a while. The first Pirates was a stand-out, as was Enchanted, but where are the classics that Disney live-action was once known for?

Seriously, even the 'crappy DTVs' excite me more.

So, I was hoping for an animated Maleficent movie.

Even if it is Brad Bird, I still have my doubts. Disney live-action has really lost its charm for me.

A Disney Villains franchise would make for a nice way to pull the studio out of the dark(or dare I say "pink) days, and move forward with quality projects.

And Disney Live Action hasn't really had much to interest me since the Pacifier. I'm already interested in the Sorcerer's Apprentice.

Disney Villain wrote:

Rudy Matt wrote:Who said anything about "Maleficent" being a cheapquel DTV?

Looks like a theatrical to me.

First off I think it's important to understand that Disney has NOT stopped, and they won't stop producing direct to video films. As I've stated a few posts above, they're too much of a money make to stop making. Lasseter will however have complete say and creative authority over them. The crappy DTV's are gone, but there are many more quality DTV's in production.

I found this article, but i'm not sure how reliable the source is. I'd take it with a grain of salt: http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/index.p ... 512-222239

Umm... what?

Anyone who knows very much about me at all on these forums likely knows of my enormous love for Maleficent!

The fact that MALEFICENTMOVIE.COM was registered by Disney get's me sooooo excited! I can't even explain how happy I would be if a film (especially if theatricle *knock on wood*) were released about my favorite character!

I'm pretty excited too. I must admit she is my fav Disney villain and Sleeping Beauty is my fav Disney movie - but I just don't know how I feel about anyone but Elanor Audley doing the voice performance. Lois Nettleton and Susanne Blakeslee who've been doing it over the years are both ok for shorts and video games and whatnot, but I wouldn't be able to handle a whole movie with one of them.

I am a thousand times against any such movie this Maleficent film sounds like it could be...

BUT I would love to see it and I have started to just say "The world's f-ed up, everyone will just keep doing what they want, and hey, if they creatively want to make something, why not?" So I'm just gonna let it go if it happens.

But I still think it's quite wrong to make such a thing.

A DTV Sleeping Beauty sequel that continues the original Perrault story with Maleficent after Aurora and her kids instead of an ogre mother...that would be a great thing. Maleficent could even turn huge to be like an ogre. They could do it and it would be kind of legit. Finishing the rest of the original story.

lord-of-sith wrote:Sure her motives weren't that great, but that just makes her more evil! I mean, lets look at some of the other villain's motives:

Queen - Mad because there is one person more pretty than she is.
Cruella - Wants a coat but can't use one specific person's puppies for it.
Tremaine - basically, see "Queen"

There are others, but those are three other much loved villainesses with pretty shallow motives.

But, Maleficent still has the best design and preformance that has possibly ever been put to animation. The design of her costume and headress is very satisfyingly gothic.

She is also quite possibly the most powerful villain, as all the powers of hell seem quite limitless

Actually Lady Tremaine seems to hate that her stepdaughter is more pretty and charming than her own daughters, and she wants her daughters to have a chance at a happy, if greedy and superficial, and perhaps not what would make them truly happy, life.

Though you are right, the film narrator says she is jealous of Cinderella's chamr and beauty. Still, she could be jealous that Cinderella has it and not her daughters. But it's still jealousy which is weird and quiet f-ed.

I agree though that Maleficent's lack of motive means she is just that evil and probably is the point. She's more evil than the stepmother, that's probably intended, she's the Mistress of all Evil.

But Tremaine's performance could be said to be better than Maleficent's as she has a bite which stops and scares the characters and the audience (or at least Frank Thomas said it scared him!). Maleficent's eyes are more scary than Tremaine's visually, but because of Lady Tremaine's character and what she has done, she strikes more fear when you see hers. She controls and harms without magic, powerful as a mere human.

I would be more scared if I met Maleficent in real life, but scary doesn't mean best. Tremaine's performance is great, she even has humorous moments. Maleficent has that "disgrace to the forces of evil" line that could be taken as humorous but in a different way, it relies more on that we never think of disgrace to evil as something bad. But Tremaine could be said to be the best performance put to animation. She is more than a speech maker like Marc Davis said of Maleficent. She does more, feels more like a moving force, though she has some moments where she lets her words be powerful while she's still, as well. She also has great design, the shape of her hair almost like horns. It's true, she and Maleficent actually look very similar. I think Maleficent's design is more interesting and possibly greater, but Tremaine's is perfect for the film she's in as is Maleficent's. It should be about performance with design, not just design, though.

Hmm... This is one of those cases where the term "I'll believe it when I see it" is applicable. Not that I don't think Disney wouldn't make a DTV series with a villian or minor character (Tinker Bell), or that Disney wouldn't want to combat with the future movie-version of Wicked. Isn't Wicked coming out in a few years or so? I thought 2010, but I haven't heard anything so I assume that's not happening so soon. Who knows, if "Maleficent" is to be a Wicked-alternative, it might even be a MUSICAL!

Still, I don't see it coming for a few more years, and since it's still in the early stages of developement, it could be dropped. Sorry to be a Debbie-Downer, again, tho! This is one project I'd love to see, I just wouldn't get my hopes up so soon.

Maybe it's just a movie-tribute to Maleficent, marking her impact on animation, viewers and detailing her creation.

If it were a movie that centered around the character in another story, I would say that's about the most ridiculus thing they could ever have done. Modern Disney could never pull off the style of Maleficent as effectively as the original film, so why harm the character's reputation with a film (theatrical or not)?

The thing about Maleficent, as a villain, is that it's hard to take her seriously when she is nearly a demon. As the Good Fairies cannot use their magic for anything other than good, how could Maleficent possibly be anything other than evil?

Disney Duster wrote:I agree though that Maleficent's lack of motive means she is just that evil and probably is the point. She's more evil than the stepmother, that's probably intended, she's the Mistress of all Evil.

I don't know. I think the fact that she sees this lack of an invitation as such a disrespect that she's willing to seek vengance on the life of your newborn child is prety badass. She's so hellbent on revenge that she searches for 16 years to ensure that her spell is fulfilled. That's absolutely psychotic. On top of it I like to think that she waited untill Aurora was 16 in hopes that the King and Queen would have spent years with her watching her grow and thus it would have been that much more devastating to them. Which you must admit is pretty sick. Also Maleficent as opposed to Tremaine: Maleficent was out for death, while Tremaine just made Cinderella a maid. I do love her too though - I think she's deliciously evil but my vote still goes to Maleficent. Greatest villain!

Although I guess death is ultimately more horrible, I think Lady Tremaine's 16-18 years of mental abuse is sick. Especially of a girl as kind and loving as Cinderella--who could've easily loved Tremaine and led her to a good life when she ended up with the Prince. Though we don't know that Tremaine wouldn't have spoiled her and she ended up like the stepsisters, not marrying the Prince. Still, Tremaine is more human in that it's love for her own daughters that blinds her to the fact that she's abusing her stepdaughter. Although I guess you could see her the Twist in Time way, where she's just riding on her daughters to bring her success (which was pretty common in old times, to be true).

A long time ago, I used to think Maleficent was a flimsy villain because of the whole "You did not invite me...? The brat dies!" plotline, but I've changed my mind as I've gotten older. Maleficent most likely considered herself, and perhaps she was, an important power/individual in King Stephen's country. In those days, to be snubbed by someone as renowned as the King was a serious offense to someone's pride or reputation. Maleficent may not have cared if they liked her or not, just that they respected her for the power she possessed.

I always assumed whe was just banned for practicing dark magic, that she was once one of the Four Good Fairies, and now she's out for revenge because King Stephen "ruined her life".

Edit: that, and she was always fascinated with the "Forces of Evil".

Disney's Divinity wrote:Although I guess death is ultimately more horrible, I think Lady Tremaine's 16-18 years of mental abuse is sick. Especially of a girl as kind and loving as Cinderella--who could've easily loved Tremaine and led her to a good life when she ended up with the Prince. Though we don't know that Tremaine wouldn't have spoiled her and she ended up like the stepsisters, not marrying the Prince. Still, Tremaine is more human in that it's love for her own daughters that blinds her to the fact that she's abusing her stepdaughter. Although I guess you could see her the Twist in Time way, where she's just riding on her daughters to bring her success (which was pretty common in old times, to be true).

I don't know, I always saw her the way they portrayed her in Twist in Time even before it came out. If you look at the original story she has one daughter cut off part of her heel, and the other cut off her big toe in order to fit into the slipper. It's ALL about power, money and a place in society. I don't necessarily see her as capable of love. I think it kind of contradicts who she is. She's self seeking and using her own daughters to fulfill her own agenda. However I do agree that 17/18 years of mental abuse is deliciously disgusting. She would probably be my second favorite villain, followed by Snow White's stepmother.

I'm lost here. Is this going to be a theatrical live action movie? Theatrical animated movie? Or animated DTV "cheapquel"?