Maleficent (Live-Action)

[Sotiris]

I am bemused by the live-action remakes, although the more successful ones to me are the ones ironically that reinterpret the source to a greater degree, like Maleficent.

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... ss-1271493

[Disney's Divinity]

I'm surprised he would think that... I mean, maybe the general idea, but not the particular film he used as an example. Maleficent's the type of film where there's some good things sandwiched between a great many bad things. I think Beauty and the Beast, The Jungle Book, and Aladdin are the best ones, personally.

[D82]

Personally, I'm not surprised by his words. I think most directors hate the fact that Disney is remaking their films in live action. Movies like Maleficent that steal less from their original work and don't try to replace the originals in the hearts of new generations of children are much less offensive for them.

[lord-of-sith]

Personally, I'm not surprised by his words. I think most directors hate the fact that Disney is remaking their films in live action. Movies like Maleficent that steal less from their original work and don't try to replace the originals in the hearts of new generations of children are much less offensive for them.

Yes exactly. I'm sure they're looking at something like Aladdin which is based so heavily on something that they originally created, and feel like they made that movie without getting the credit. How much more interesting would it be if something like Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast had completely revamped the script for a new generation, without feeling the constraints of pre-established characters or songs that don't work in live action (with non-singers)? Sadly, as the reaction to Mulan has already shown, people will moan and bitch about nearly anything that's left out from the original movies. But, do we really need inferior versions of "Reflection" and "I'll Make a Man Out of You"? I think this very different take we're getting looks super cool and interesting!

Maleficent and it's sequel obviously have their flaws, but at least they are totally new scripts and new takes on the characters. Only one scene between both movies is basically a shot-for-shot remake from the original Sleeping Beauty, but I feel that scene is actually earned through the narrative rather than just thrown in for nostalgia sake. That's why I can go back and watch them, because I'm not constantly comparing them to a better movie of the same thing.

Some of the other remakes might be "better" movies objectively, but when the only good things about your movie (for the most part) are things lifted directly from another movie, that's a problem.

[Disney's Divinity]

Yes, people will criticize the re-makes regardless. Some will hate it for choosing to be more original and others will hate it from deviating from the film it’s re-making. I understand why people would expect originality from a new adaptation of the same story, but I'll admit I find it odd to look for originality from a ‘re-make.' Especially when many of the original things they have come up with are usually hated once the films are released anyway, or at least that's how it seems here. *shrug*

[D82]

Maleficent and it's sequel obviously have their flaws, but at least they are totally new scripts and new takes on the characters. Only one scene between both movies is basically a shot-for-shot remake from the original Sleeping Beauty, but I feel that scene is actually earned through the narrative rather than just thrown in for nostalgia sake. That's why I can go back and watch them, because I'm not constantly comparing them to a better movie of the same thing.

I feel the same way when I watch that kind of remakes. Even though I prefer Disney wouldn't make them, I'm curious about them at first (to know who they cast in the roles, how they adapt the costumes/sets, what changes they make to the story, etc.), but when I finally see the films, it's not a very pleasant experience for me. I'm constantly comparing them to the originals like you, and I just don't like seeing the same dialogue and songs being recreated again. I don't know how to explain it, but I like the originals just like they are and I would like they were the only film versions by Disney. Maybe it's because I'm not used to seeing other versions of them. I haven't seen any Broadway adaptation or any kind of theatrical production based on them. But still, they are in other mediums, while these are films too, just in live action instead of animation. These remakes feel like falsifications to me, like they are trying to replace the originals or make them less unique. I know they're not going to achieve that, but I can't help but feel that way. That's why I usually watch them just once. The only ones I've watched more than once are Alice in Wonderland, which is actually a sequel and doesn't have much in common with the animated one, and Maleficent. I also have fewer problems with the remakes that are really different from the originals like Pete's Dragon.

[Farerb]

I'm fine with the concept of Maleficent, I just think the execution was awful.
I find Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King's remakes to, not only be terrible, but the idea that Disney just nonchalantly remakes films that have been landmarks, not only in animation, but to cinema as a whole, is just repulsive in my opinion.

[JeanGreyForever]

I wouldn't mind the remakes that drift away from the source material if they weren't so badly written and done, Maleficent coming to mind. There's literally nothing appealing about any of the characters or designs in the film and it's laughable to think they tried to flesh out Aurora when she's even more bland and nondescript in the remake. It doesn't help that the most iconic moment for Maleficent (the dragon scene) is also robbed from her and the rape allegory simply doesn't work imo. The visuals were never going to compare to the majesty of the original film but it's like they realized that and decided to not even try to make the film look aesthetically pleasing.

Alice in Wonderland, while not a good adaptation of the source material, is at least an enjoyable film to watch imo and it helps that when it came out, it was still a fresh idea. The cast is also clearly having fun with their work.

Pete's Dragon was an improvement over the original although that isn't saying much and frankly even the remake wasn't very good imo. Still haven't seen Dumbo but from what I have seen of it and what I've heard, it just seems like a very anachronistic and unnecessary film that oddly doesn't paint Disney in a very nice manner.

I've criticized The Lion King and Lady and the Tramp remakes for being shot-by-shot remakes, but I still like the films like Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Aladdin, which are clearly inspired by the original films and wouldn't exist if the original films had never been made, but they still differentiate a bit so it still feels like a whole new experience. Beauty and the Beast is sort of like that as well but all the revisions and alterations do not work imo and frankly, most of that comes down to Emma Watson lol. Between her singing, her acting, her interfering in the choice of dress, wanting to make Belle more progressive by being an inventor, teaching girls to read in a village that for some reason outlaws reading for women, and throwing in a useless storyline about her mother which ends up breaking the narrative (through that magic book which Belle could have used to transport herself to her father later), I can't help but feel that the film would have been way better without Watson at the helm. It tries to hard to seem revolutionary and fix everything that was "wrong" with the original film when there was nothing that needed fixing and Belle is already a feminist and progressive heroine who doesn't need updating. I'm just glad Watson dismissed that nonsense about Stockholm Syndrome at least.

[Farerb]

It was probably her idea to not have Belle cry or show any emotion. Cause Strong Female Characters™ don't cry, they proactively try to escape and lie about it afterwards.

[lord-of-sith]

I feel the same way when I watch that kind of remakes. Even though I prefer Disney wouldn't make them, I'm curious about them at first (to know who they cast in the roles, how they adapt the costumes/sets, what changes they make to the story, etc.), but when I finally see the films, it's not a very pleasant experience for me. I'm constantly comparing them to the originals like you, and I just don't like seeing the same dialogue and songs being recreated again.

I think the "seeing the same dialogue and songs being recreated" is the essential problem. I think everyone here will agree that the way the dialogue and songs are performed in the originals is perfect and ideal, hence why they are classics. To recreate them beat for beat, while trying to add a slightly different spin or tone, only serves to make them worse or inferior. When I was watching The Lion King, I just kept hearing the original line readings in my head. But it was obvious the actors were trying to say the lines in a different way, so as not to clone copy the original. However, the original lines were given inflections for a reason, so the new ways just seemed odd and worse. This was especially obvious given that James Earl Jones was in both movies. Now we have two versions of practically the same lines, one being perfect and iconic, the other just seeming like alternate takes. To me, that's why Billy Eichner was the ONLY person to come out of that movie unscathed, because he obviously did some improvising and took liberties the other actors didn't. It was an actual fresh take on the character.

[JeanGreyForever]

It was probably her idea to not have Belle cry or show any emotion. Cause Strong Female Characters™ don't cry, they proactively try to escape and lie about it afterwards.

Lol. She did look more dazed and confused in the transformation scene frankly. As much as I love Emma Watson as a person and for her humanitarian work, I don't think she's that amazing of an actress. Serviceable definitely but there's a reason that her most iconic role is pretty much also the same role she repeats. She was very good in Little Women though and the character of Meg was a departure from her typical.

[D82]

I find Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King's remakes to, not only be terrible, but the idea that Disney just nonchalantly remakes films that have been landmarks, not only in animation, but to cinema as a whole, is just repulsive in my opinion.

Me too. I'm more or less resigned to Disney doing these remakes now, but at first I was horrified at the idea.

I think the "seeing the same dialogue and songs being recreated" is the essential problem. I think everyone here will agree that the way the dialogue and songs are performed in the originals is perfect and ideal, hence why they are classics. To recreate them beat for beat, while trying to add a slightly different spin or tone, only serves to make them worse or inferior.

That's true, I've also noticed that. The more shot-for-shot they are, the worse in my opinion.

It tries to hard to seem revolutionary and fix everything that was "wrong" with the original film when there was nothing that needed fixing and Belle is already a feminist and progressive heroine who doesn't need updating. I'm just glad Watson dismissed that nonsense about Stockholm Syndrome at least.

That's also something I don't like about the remakes, that they have to justify their existence by "fixing" things that people criticise about the originals. Because, of course, they can't say the whole reason they're making them is to make money.

[Sotiris]

"Maleficent" Took Over 10 Years To Hit The Big Screen And Here's The Story Behind It
https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/m ... screen-and

10 Things We Learned From Don Hahn During WDFM Happily Ever After Hours
https://www.laughingplace.com/w/article ... ter-hours/

[Disney Duster]

Wow, that's very interesting.

[PatchofBlue]

Why Maleficent Isn't More Feminist Than The Original Sleeping Beauty
https://collider.com/why-maleficent-isn ... ng-beauty/

So, there it is: Sleeping Beauty boasts four principal female characters, with a range of personality types and without male agency driving their thoughts and deeds. Three of them work in concert to drive the film as its heroines. The villainess is the mightiest single force in the story and if the sleeping beauty herself isn’t the most interesting or dynamic princess Disney has ever animated, she is still a pleasant character who easily inspires sympathy. There is a traditional love-at-first-sight romance, to be sure, pivotal to the story’s resolution, but the journey to that end is female-led all the way. And the princess's mother is alive, even!

Against that, what does Maleficent have? Another dead mother. A sleeping beauty no more fleshed out than she was when animated, and a Prince Phillip who is considerably less interesting in live action. And the three fairies, those clear personalities with a strong rapport, the heroines who steered Sleeping Beauty forward through every major story turn, are reduced to comic relief. Worse than that, incompetent comic relief. Their hand in softening the curse upon Aurora is taken away from them, as is their devising the plan for her safety. That becomes a task ordered to them by King Stefan, not a choice they made. And they are terrible at that task. Their squabbling and negligence almost cost an infant Aurora her life, and the film takes every opportunity to have other characters brand the fairies as idiots.

This is more or less how I've always felt about the movie. Every quasi-feminist step forward is met with like four steps back. In order to boost Maleficent as a protagonist, they have to drag every other female character down.

And why, oh why, did they not let her transform into a dragon at the end?

[Disney Duster]

I wanted it to be like Maleficent secretly let Phillip win against her (and in dragon form, damnit!), and maybe she doesn't die but magically stays alive. Or hell, dies just so her beloved adopted daughter can live a good life.

I also hate what they did to every character, changing them to be less good so Maleficent can seem that much better. The only thing I guess I would have accepted was King Stephen's change since that kinda drives the remake's story.

[MaQu]

Why Maleficent Isn't More Feminist Than The Original Sleeping Beauty
https://collider.com/why-maleficent-isn ... ng-beauty/

So, there it is: Sleeping Beauty boasts four principal female characters, with a range of personality types and without male agency driving their thoughts and deeds. Three of them work in concert to drive the film as its heroines. The villainess is the mightiest single force in the story and if the sleeping beauty herself isn’t the most interesting or dynamic princess Disney has ever animated, she is still a pleasant character who easily inspires sympathy. There is a traditional love-at-first-sight romance, to be sure, pivotal to the story’s resolution, but the journey to that end is female-led all the way. And the princess's mother is alive, even!

Against that, what does Maleficent have? Another dead mother. A sleeping beauty no more fleshed out than she was when animated, and a Prince Phillip who is considerably less interesting in live action. And the three fairies, those clear personalities with a strong rapport, the heroines who steered Sleeping Beauty forward through every major story turn, are reduced to comic relief. Worse than that, incompetent comic relief. Their hand in softening the curse upon Aurora is taken away from them, as is their devising the plan for her safety. That becomes a task ordered to them by King Stefan, not a choice they made. And they are terrible at that task. Their squabbling and negligence almost cost an infant Aurora her life, and the film takes every opportunity to have other characters brand the fairies as idiots.

This is more or less how I've always felt about the movie. Every quasi-feminist step forward is met with like four steps back. In order to boost Maleficent as a protagonist, they have to drag every other female character down.

And why, oh why, did they not let her transform into a dragon at the end?

I love this article, and I don't even dislike live-action Maleficent, I just never saw it as a feminist story people made it sound like.

[Sotiris]

In 2014, for instance, Mr. Bailey flew to Budapest from Los Angeles at a moment’s notice to have dinner with Angelina Jolie. She had agreed to star in “Maleficent” but seemed to be getting cold feet after reading a revised script. Whatever he told her worked; “Maleficent” and a sequel took in a combined $1.3 billion. “Sean is what we don’t see often these days, and certainly not in film,” Ms. Jolie said by email. “He’s consistent, stable and decent. When we have challenges, as all films do, he is even and fair. It may not be exciting for a story, but it is what we need more of.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/04/busi ... ction.html

After “Alice,” a plan came together — there would be a “Sleeping Beauty” live-action remake told from the point of view of the self-described Mistress of Evil, “Maleficent” (played by Angelina Jolie). Tim Burton was courted to direct; when he turned it down, Disney went for his production designer Robert Stromberg. It was a borderline-disastrous shoot, with an additional director brought in for reshoots and a storyline that so radically changed that journalists who attended a set visit were banned from reporting what they saw. The movie nevertheless made almost $800 million worldwide and inspired a sequel years later.

Source: https://www.thewrap.com/sean-bailey-disney-legacy/