Disney's ‘Maleficent' - May 30th, 2014

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Sean B.

Actually, That IS the real trailer description. The one I had posted before turned out to be BS. This is the description of the real trailer unlike the fake one that I found and posted before -> http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/08/1...ey-villainess/ .

Okay, Sean - sorry I missed that last time...but if that's the path they're going down...Maleficent doesn't want to kill Aurora after letting people have 16 years to love her and bond with her, but instead, wants her to go to sleep until her true love can find her...then my enthusiasm has declined.

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Okay, Sean - sorry I missed that last time...but if that's the path they're going down...Maleficent doesn't want to kill Aurora after letting people have 16 years to love her and bond with her, but instead, wants her to go to sleep until her true love can find her...then my enthusiasm has declined.

Yes, I think you're right.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

I don't want them to turn Maleficent into Darth Vader: she was an evil fairy queen from the beginning. She doesn't need to be given a retconned origin as some noble figure of fallen grace. Some characters are simply evil through and through and that's their function in the story.

Besides, it was Merryweather who gave Aurora an out by reducing the effect of Maleficent's spell from death to eternal sleep. Revisionist whitewashing at its finest.

Just like with Oz the Great and Powerful, I believe Disney is only doing this project because they're convinced they can strike gold a second time after Alice in Wonderland made a billion dollars.

So count me out on this one.

Perfect. I couldn't have said it better. F*** this movie. The modern day studio bosses at Disney sure love shitting all over Walt's legacy, don't they?

[cinemaphile]

I wondered about this from the beginning. Would they really make a movie where the main character is a truly evil? No. They're going to give her a backstory that makes her a tragic figure who was just misunderstood, or who was driven into the person she became, but she's not REALLY evil.

...and thus ruin the character.

I like Jolie, and she's perfect for the role, but if this is truly the route they're taking - and it likely is - then my interest level has dropped dramatically.

[Woody]

What a bummer. Maleficent is my all time favorite Disney villain.

[The Mad Kiwi]

I can confirm that the Sean's description is accurate as I was at the D23 Expo, and the sneak peek we got of Maleficent was of this very scene. I, too, was taken aback by: a) how much of her dialogue was taken from the 1959 film, and b) how she placed the "true love's kiss" loophole herself rather than one of the fairies. It makes me wonder what the third fairy Thistlewit (who was yellow in the clip I saw, not blue like Merryweather, and was portrayed by Juno Temple) will bestow upon the baby. The fairies are odd looking because they're completely CG yet retain the facial characteristics of the actors playing them (think Robert Zemeckis' motion capture flicks). We didn't see what gift Imelda Staunton's fairy, Knotgrass, gave (and judging by how she leads the group, she appears to be the Flora replacement; she's pink, as well), but the second fairy (Flittle, a blue fairy played by Lesley Manville) gives Aurora the gift of either laughter or happiness so that she "will never be blue."

Along with that brief christening clip, we also got shots of Aurora in the woods surrounded by either fairies or wood sprites and of her rolling around in the leaves laughing. We also got a quick glimpse of the famous finger-pricking scene, which seems to be staged differently from the Disney film in that Aurora's in a room completely filled with spinning wheels from top to bottom (perhaps Stefan has them all relocated to this room rather than burning them?).

Visually, the reel was gorgeous. The production and costume design are very reminiscent of the 1959 film, but with a more ethereal, luminescent quality (think Eyvind Earle run through a Thomas Kinkade filter). I don't know what to think of the content since we saw so little, but again, I think it's strange how this film seems to be a quasi-remake of the Disney film rather than its own adaptation like Branagh's Cinderella. I don't know what to think, yet, about Maleficent's motivations, either. I will say, though, that Jolie's voice for her is quite good.

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by The Mad Kiwi

I can confirm that the Sean's description is accurate as I was at the D23 Expo, and the sneak peek we got of Maleficent was of this very scene. I, too, was taken aback by: a) how much of her dialogue was taken from the 1959 film, and b) how she placed the "true love's kiss" loophole herself rather than one of the fairies. It makes me wonder what the third fairy Thistlewit (who was yellow in the clip I saw, not blue like Merryweather, and was portrayed by Juno Temple) will bestow upon the baby. The fairies are odd looking because they're completely CG yet retain the facial characteristics of the actors playing them (think Robert Zemeckis' motion capture flicks). We didn't see what gift Imelda Staunton's fairy, Knotgrass, gave (and judging by how she leads the group, she appears to be the Flora replacement; she's pink, as well), but the second fairy (Flittle, a blue fairy played by Lesley Manville) gives Aurora the gift of either laughter or happiness so that she "will never be blue."

Along with that brief christening clip, we also got shots of Aurora in the woods surrounded by either fairies or wood sprites and of her rolling around in the leaves laughing. We also got a quick glimpse of the famous finger-pricking scene, which seems to be staged differently from the Disney film in that Aurora's in a room completely filled with spinning wheels from top to bottom (perhaps Stefan has them all relocated to this room rather than burning them?).

Visually, the reel was gorgeous. The production and costume design are very reminiscent of the 1959 film, but with a more ethereal, luminescent quality (think Eyvind Earle run through a Thomas Kinkade filter). I don't know what to think of the content since we saw so little, but again, I think it's strange how this film seems to be a quasi-remake of the Disney film rather than its own adaptation like Branagh's Cinderella. I don't know what to think, yet, about Maleficent's motivations, either. I will say, though, that Jolie's voice for her is quite good.

I had a feeling that would be the case . Thank you for confirming that . I was beginning to wonder why that first description of the trailer, didn't sound quite right for some reason after I had posted it. That being right before I found the second trailer description for Maleficent's trailer, that turned out to be the accurate one .

[Walts Ghost]

While I think the changes are unnecessary, the footage they showed at D23 did look good...So it's still got my interest. At least for now. Having Sharlto Copley helps, because that man is a damn fine actor. Jolie is going to be perfect in this role too.

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

While I think the changes are unnecessary, the footage they showed at D23 did look good...So it's still got my interest. At least for now. Having Sharlto Copley helps, because that man is a damn fine actor. Jolie is going to be perfect in this role too.

I assume that the footage was about a minute long or so ?

[Pounder]

Originally Posted by sean b.

i assume that the footage was about a minute long or so ?

Yes

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by pgestradasp1

Yes

Cool . I'm looking forward to seeing it, when its released on the internet .

[Edword]

Sounds like it could have potential, but I'm still being cautious about this.

[P@t_Mtl]

I wasn't too wild about this one from the start, no offense to anyone but I am not a fan of Jolie at all. With what the story is going to be now, this is now been push to a rental at best.

[Thomas Guycott]

Oh boy, just read the official synopsis on io9...

“Maleficent” is the untold story of Disney’s most iconic villain from the 1959 classic “Sleeping Beauty.” A beautiful, pure-hearted young woman, Maleficent has an idyllic life growing up in a peaceable forest kingdom, until one day when an invading army threatens the harmony of the land. Maleficent rises to be the land’s fiercest protector, but she ultimately suffers a ruthless betrayal—an act that begins to turn her pure heart to stone. Bent on revenge, Maleficent faces an epic battle with the invading king’s successor and, as a result, places a curse upon his newborn infant Aurora. As the child grows, Maleficent realizes that Aurora holds the key to peace in the kingdom—and perhaps to Maleficent’s true happiness as well.

Screw this movie and scrrreeewww Disney!

[Jasonic]

Well son of a B! Way to go Disney, way to ruin your most iconic villain.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

Oh boy, just read the official synopsis on io9...

“Maleficent” is the untold story of Disney’s most iconic villain from the 1959 classic “Sleeping Beauty.” A beautiful, pure-hearted young woman, Maleficent has an idyllic life growing up in a peaceable forest kingdom, until one day when an invading army threatens the harmony of the land. Maleficent rises to be the land’s fiercest protector, but she ultimately suffers a ruthless betrayal—an act that begins to turn her pure heart to stone. Bent on revenge, Maleficent faces an epic battle with the invading king’s successor and, as a result, places a curse upon his newborn infant Aurora. As the child grows, Maleficent realizes that Aurora holds the key to peace in the kingdom—and perhaps to Maleficent’s true happiness as well.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

[Ernest Rister]

So much for the "Mistress of all Evil", eh?

[Blu-Benny]

[Foggy]

[agoofykindasuperman]

Damn, that's a shame. Too late now for Disney to hear all our cries I suppose. Oh well, the masses will eat it up anyway. Because they're dumb.