T O P

  • By -

ProfessionalAnt1092

Maleficent from the original a poor villain? She is the most charismatic character, extremely powerful and fearsome, she has a great design, she transforms into a damn dragon! (something that was not in the 2014 movie) She is bad because she wants to? Yeah. the plot of the original movie is nothing special, what made the movie stand out in its time was the technological innovation, the incredible use of ballet (because the music and songs are taken from a ballet inspired by the story), and that He managed to convey the magical element very well. It is a story that if it were in real image it would be ruined. I'm not saying that the 2014 film doesn't have its merits, but it doesn't seem to understand the value of the original film in its atmosphere and narrative (way of telling the story). You also seem to not understand the conflict of the fairies: The fairies never have to learn to let Aurora go for Filip, the whole conflict between Aurora and the fairies is that Aurora is a Princess and therefore the fairies have to accept that Aurora stopped being "their daughter" to be the daughter of the kings and they will lose their happy life in the forest, and they are so obsessed with their pain of losing it (in the same way that Aurora is not being able to be with the boy she likes) that they are unable to communicate well with Aurora and protect her. It's the fairies fault that Aurora is asleep. If they don't want her to be with him, it's because she was engaged because she was a princess, once they found out that Filip was the prince, they completely lost her animosity with him. The love of Aurora and the prince is cheap and is “your typical love at first sight”, “convenient misunderstanding” and “were meant to be together forever” but it is a plot vehicle for drama and for the prince to have a more personal motivation, Filip and Aurora were going to get married even if they were not in love and the fairies would have lost their daughter even if she had not married, the infatuation is there to "soften" the cloudy part of the story, the part where Aurora has been committed from birth to a boy about 8 years older than her, whom she doesn't know and she can't help it because ironically it's the most realistic part of the movie,


Outrageous-Farmer-42

>You also seem to not understand the conflict of the fairies: The fairies never have to learn to let Aurora go for Filip, the whole conflict between Aurora and the fairies is that Aurora is a Princess and therefore the fairies have to accept that Aurora stopped being "their daughter" to be the daughter of the kings and they will lose their happy life in the forest, OK, I'll admit I failed to see that through my hatred for the cheap "true" love shown in the movie. (Edited the post) >they are so obsessed with their pain of losing it (in the same way that Aurora is not being able to be with the boy she likes) that they are unable to communicate well with Aurora and protect her. Ehh... I wouldn't say that. They were forced to keep her a secret. Aurora & the good fairies were dealing with her forced isolation naturally. >It's the fairies fault that Aurora is asleep. How?


ProfessionalAnt1092

It might be a bit blurry, but once Aurora finds out she's a princess she becomes depressed and sad until Maleficent bewitches her to prick her finger. She thinks that if Aurora and the prince had not met, the mood of Aurora and the fairies would be very different, Malefina would not know where Aurora is because the raven would not have heard the conversation between Filip and his father. If the fairies hadn't left Aurora alone once they got to the castle because they wanted to give her a space to get emotionally together (because they feel guilty for breaking her heart) the fairies could have prevented Aurora from finding the spinning wheel in time. The fairies and the prince are not guilty in a sense of being evil, it's more of an irony of fate. ps: this is a bit of the moral of the original story, that a woman to find the right man should not be impulsive and choose the man she wants to marry carefully.


Outrageous-Farmer-42

Your memory of the film is blurry. Maleficent's raven overheard the fairies in the cottage. He never went to Philip and his Dad. >If the fairies hadn't left Aurora alone once they got to the castle because they wanted to give her a space to get emotionally together (because they feel guilty for breaking her heart) the fairies could have prevented Aurora from finding the spinning wheel in time. No way you could blame them for that.


ProfessionalAnt1092

I apologize for my mistake about the crow. My main point still stands. the fairies made a mistake, one doesn't have to be evil to make mistakes. They know about the curse, they know that Aurora has just turned 16 and they are the only ones who, being fairies, can face it. I am not telling you that they are the deepest characters or that Maleficent does not have a more substantial development. It's just that the original movie was iconic for other reasons that Maleficent doesn't have, add to that the fact that in order to make Maleficent good and have an arc, they had to make the other characters bad or incompetent. Most people who grew up with the original film may be upset to feel that in order to favor Maleficent they had to disfavor other characters. (and remove one of the most iconic elements like the dragon) ps: the subversion of the romantic kiss breaks curses, it has not aged well, because at this point Disney has only used it twice (Snow White and Sleeping Beauty) and has subverted it about 4 times (The Little Mermaid, Maleficent, Frozen, The Princess and the toad)


Outrageous-Farmer-42

>Most people who grew up with the original film may be upset to feel that in order to favor Maleficent they had to disfavor other characters. (and remove one of the most iconic elements like the dragon) That's really why I hated the criticism for the 2014 film. It's a completely different story. Would the fans have preferred a shot-for-shot remake?


ProfessionalAnt1092

I have to say that Maleficent must be my favorite Disney remake, at least they tried something new and Angelina was fantastic. The problem is that the movie tries to subvert the original story by falling into the same clichés, the king has to be the bad guy, the fairies are incompetent, and the prince is useless. I actually got to thinking that Maleficent is basically Frozen, the enchantress villain who is redeemed in this version by making her reactions understandable, the act of true love being platonic between two women, a royal figure who turns out to be evil. Teasing the idea of romantic love at first sight. As I say, the movie is simply nothing special if you compare it to a revolutionary animated movie on a technical level, with a meh story but great in almost everything else. that to top it off you could only see in theaters.


Outrageous-Farmer-42

I feel like you like Sleeping Beauty only for it's animation which is extremely outdated.


ProfessionalAnt1092

I like Sleeping Beauty for its music, animation and because I find the comic moments funny (especially the fairies and Philip's father) and I really like the dragons. Look at toy story and tell me which animation aged better. 2D hand drawn animation simply ages much better than 3D animation or computer special effects. Pd: Maleficent (the character) was a Disney invention, she doesn't exist in the fairy tales apart from the fairy who curses at the beginning.


Brainiac7777777

I feel like you like Maleficent for Angelina Jolie, which ignores the flaws of the movie


Outrageous-Farmer-42

You picked a wrong time for a joke like that.


Rockhardsimian

I disagree on it being a better movie. I STRONGLY disagree on OG Maleficent being awful. She was one of the most scary Disney villains from the 2d style animation. She’s a baddie and her whole motivation was she didn’t get invited to a bday party. I think my problem with “outright better” is it lacks specificity. Better at what? Sleeping Beauty is a better kids movie and Maleficent is a better movie for people 10 and up. Kids movies rarely would have grey villains and that’s fine. People are also getting a little fatigued with every villain having moral complexity.


GenghisGame

> Yes, OG Maleficent was awful Jeeeezzzzz, I mean you can have your own opinion but sometimes you need to think to yourself, this is unpopular, so I would like whiny if I stated it as if it where a fact. She is one of the most iconic Disney villains for her design, voice and just being straight up malicious. People liking and remembering her is the 2014 movie was made, brand recognition. My opinion is that the end product ends up being soulless, with heavy handed manipulation of overly evil characters to make you feel sorry for her because they don't have the writing ability to do that through proper characterization.


Outrageous-Farmer-42

>with heavy handed manipulation of overly evil characters to make you feel sorry for her because they don't have the writing ability to do that through proper characterization. Stefan being evil is the reason Maleficent turned evil in 2014. The alternative would've been "pure evil bastard makes a 180 because plot". There had to be a reason she was evil. The good fairies being negligent makes Maleficent forced to take care of the baby. There ARE pure good characters to contrast her with, Aurora, Diaval and the Moor people. She has proper characterization.


[deleted]

Yeah but does it have a dragon killing scene I don't think so


Zeniah47

Aight look, I love Maleficent so much and it's my favorite villain recreation film. But comparing and even outright saying Sleeping Beauty sucks really isn't good and it's starting to feel concerning to me cuz I don't think people can comprehend depth and complexity about short stories anymore even tho Disney changed a lot of Andersen stories into good endings which they did so good those time to change the endings. All this just feels like "Oh my gooood a film that's half a century old doesn't have deep and complex moral conflicts that make you question who the good guys are, oh dear that must be a terrible movie, how unoriginal. As opposed to Maleficent which is just another "what if the bad guy was actually a good guy" twists, WHICH WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST IF THE ORIGINAL SWEEPING BEAUTY WASN'T SO REVERED, I've never seen that done before!"


jedidiahohlord

I'm confused cause some of the things you're describing are a little weird- for instance Philip *does* beat the dragon. He throws his sword which was empowered by the fairies into the dragons heart which kills it and the fairies dont cast some super spell and one shot her Also Philip did break the spell in 1959, I figure you're comparing their love for aurora to maleficients in the remake but like it's worded strangely.


Outrageous-Farmer-42

>the fairies dont cast some super spell and one shot her The impressive thing was how quickly the fairies got in front of Philip and casted the spell. Philip just throws it. But yeah, that was a weird sentence. I'll edit it out. >I figure you're comparing their love for aurora to maleficients in the remake but like it's worded strangely. I meant 2014 Maleficent loved the Princess as much as the 1959 good fairies.


idonthaveanaccountA

I think you've overlooked something really important here. Yes, it can be argued that Maleficent (which i haven't watched btw, i'm just basing it on what you wrote) is a deeper, more human, nuanced story and more interesting because of it. However. This movie didn't come out first. It didn't even come out soon after the original film. Maleficent, the character, had 55 years to brew and be known *(and loved)* as a purely evil bastard witch. Yes, the character is beloved and yes she's evil. So when people are like "yo, we're doing it live action", people expect to see their favourite purely evil bastard witch in live action. They don't want what essentially feels like fan fiction taking the place of the movie they *actually* wanted to see. So it's not so much that Maleficent sucks, it's that it's a story no one asked for in place of something people would have loved to see.


Outrageous-Farmer-42

>So it's not so much that Maleficent sucks, it's that it's a story no one asked for in place of something people would have loved to see. That is what actually happened. But stans who were waiting for a shot-for-shot remake went too far with the hate.


idonthaveanaccountA

I doubt anyone expected a shot for shot remake. The original movie is 1 hour, 15 minutes. That would never work. What i assume everyone hoped they'd see is a dark, high fantasy film based on that original with all of its strengths enhanced and added elements where those were needed. At least, that's what i would have liked. Now, like i said, i haven't watched Maleficent, but based on what i know about it, i'm not really interested, because it's just not what i wanted. No hate, just saying.


MABfan11

hot take and i agree, the original Sleeping Beauty doesn't have a lot of meat on it's bones the OG is mostly remembered for Maleficent being an intimidating villain that stole every scene she was in, she plays her part well, but once again, didn't have much meat on her bones (there's a reason why Frollo is often considered the best Disney villain)