Maleficent
I'm thinking it'll be a dud. I can't imagine this remake of a classic cartoon will go anywhere. :/
My blog --> http://metal15likesmetal.blogspot.com
My Youtube channel --> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa8Nt7 ... ILthNNlUww
My Youtube channel --> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa8Nt7 ... ILthNNlUww
- The Top Crusader
- Hammer Bro
- Posts: 22629
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: A drawbridge over a lava pit with an axe conveniently off to the side
It looks weird and I don't like it.
- Knight Fisher
- I fish in the darkness
- Posts: 5322
- Joined: May 2011
This coupled with the live action Cinderella marks a disturbing trend.
To LGBT ToOers: The world is so much wider than your family and church. There are accepting people out there.
I didn’t have the interest to go see this on my own, but a friend offered to take me for my birthday so I saw it.
I actually liked it quite a bit. As far as completely unnecessary prequels go, it wasn’t bad at all. Though it wasn’t actually a prequel as much as a retelling.
I had meant to watch Sleeping Beauty before, since I’ve only seen it once years ago and remember nothing about it, but didn’t get around to it so I’ll watch it sometime after. Until then I won’t know how to think about how it fits in, if it does at all, with the original story, but at least as a stand alone movie it’s pretty decent.
I actually liked it quite a bit. As far as completely unnecessary prequels go, it wasn’t bad at all. Though it wasn’t actually a prequel as much as a retelling.
I had meant to watch Sleeping Beauty before, since I’ve only seen it once years ago and remember nothing about it, but didn’t get around to it so I’ll watch it sometime after. Until then I won’t know how to think about how it fits in, if it does at all, with the original story, but at least as a stand alone movie it’s pretty decent.
The movie pretty much left me with one thought:
I'm all for this new trend of strong, independent female roles in the traditionally conservative Disney canon. But I don't want to see the pendulum simply swing in the opposite extreme. Okay, so a Disney princess doesn't always need a Prince to rescue her. But does every single male character have to be completely and totally useless or inept? When's the last time Disney has given us a strong male role model? Aladdin, maybe? Tangled, if we're being generous? I think Prince Charming is dead.
Fallacy of false continuum. // bookworm
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Well now you just have a taste of what it's like to constantly see characters of your gender be completely and totally useless or inept, as a matter of course. Sucks, doesn't it.Jelly wrote:But does every single male character have to be completely and totally useless or inept?
As for movies with male leads recently:
Monsters University
Wreck-It Ralph
Arjun: The Warrior Prince
And I would honestly argue that the male leads they've had in recent movies have NOT been useless and inept. I'm not sure where that's coming from. Because the central storyline and action takes place around the women in the movie, the men are suddenly useless because they aren't the main deal?
Kristof wasn't useless. He wasn't SUPER MACHO NO FEELINGS MASCULINE, he was an actual character with depth and nuance who was on the more sensitive side. But he wasn't useless. He was an active part of the story and didn't sit around waiting to be rescued from his castle.
And with Tangled, Flynn was again, a primary part of the action in the movie and I would certainly never say he was useless.
I haven't seen Brave, so I can't comment there. And neither have I seen this movie.
But let's be real: Male characters haven't gone away. They aren't useless or inept. They just haven't been the main driving force behind some of the more recent Disney narratives. And even if they have it never ceases to amuse me that, that fact becomes the primary criticism from people when women have been complaining about the same thing for years and years and we just hear "Don't be so sensitive about it. It's just a movie. Blah blah blah."
/feministrant
"Any aspect of your faith which you do not question, is the one which should be questioned most."
"I totally approve of toddlers getting married." -Continental Admiral (aka Baragon)
I knew you'd jump on this thread.
My comments about all the male characters being useless or inept was specifically about Maleficent. I wasn't making any broad or paranoid claims about the state of movies in general. I loved Tangled. I loved Wreck-It Ralph. Heck, I'm the only one on these forums who will even defend Brave. And of course I loved Frozen. (I feel like you're projecting a dislike of Kristof on me, which is completely uncalled for. I never accused Kristof of being useless, and you don't need to tell me why Kristof was great.)
But Maleficent suffered from several things, one of which was a disappointing waste of character potential in the male characters. The movie didn't just waste male characters, though... it hated them. (There's a pivotal scene that stands in as a metaphor for rape, after which all male characters become entirely mistrusted by the film itself.) At best, that's poor artistic integrity. Especially in a fantasy environment that points so strongly towards redemption. Kait, you should probably see the film first before defending it. Not that the movie's bad because of it... it's just a noteworthy critique.
My comments about all the male characters being useless or inept was specifically about Maleficent. I wasn't making any broad or paranoid claims about the state of movies in general. I loved Tangled. I loved Wreck-It Ralph. Heck, I'm the only one on these forums who will even defend Brave. And of course I loved Frozen. (I feel like you're projecting a dislike of Kristof on me, which is completely uncalled for. I never accused Kristof of being useless, and you don't need to tell me why Kristof was great.)
But Maleficent suffered from several things, one of which was a disappointing waste of character potential in the male characters. The movie didn't just waste male characters, though... it hated them. (There's a pivotal scene that stands in as a metaphor for rape, after which all male characters become entirely mistrusted by the film itself.) At best, that's poor artistic integrity. Especially in a fantasy environment that points so strongly towards redemption. Kait, you should probably see the film first before defending it. Not that the movie's bad because of it... it's just a noteworthy critique.
Fallacy of false continuum. // bookworm
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
You said:
I wasn't defending the movie because I haven't seen it. I was defending the "new trend."
Emphasis mine. I definitely read all of that as speaking to the recent trend of strong female roles and secondary male roles. You didn't mention Maleficent at all in that paragraph and actually were discussing Disney princesses (which Maleficent is not). You also seemed to feel like Disney hasn't had any "strong male roles" lately, which is why I went into Kristof and Tangled. They are strong male roles ... they just aren't the primary roles. I wasn't trying to project any dislike on to you, just to rebut the idea that there haven't been any strong males lately. Sooo that's what my post was about. The trend, which is what *I* thought that paragraph was about. Apparently not.Jelly wrote:I'm all for this new trend of strong, independent female roles in the traditionally conservative Disney canon. But I don't want to see the pendulum simply swing in the opposite extreme. Okay, so a Disney princess doesn't always need a Prince to rescue her. But does every single male character have to be completely and totally useless or inept? When's the last time Disney has given us a strong male role model? Aladdin, maybe? Tangled, if we're being generous? I think Prince Charming is dead.
I wasn't defending the movie because I haven't seen it. I was defending the "new trend."
"Any aspect of your faith which you do not question, is the one which should be questioned most."
"I totally approve of toddlers getting married." -Continental Admiral (aka Baragon)
=p Haha, this made me literally laugh out loud (and that is rare with text)Jelly wrote:The movie pretty much left me with one thought:
snubs is not dumb as he really is very smart. — Bmuntz
| Odyssey Chat | Odyssey Moments | OM Podcast | #NotAIOMerch |
| Odyssey Chat | Odyssey Moments | OM Podcast | #NotAIOMerch |
I love the new trend. It's what gave Brave and Frozen so much life. But trends can quickly go off the deep end. Something that's a really good thing can, in reckless excess, suddenly become a bad thing. Maleficent essentially does the same thing as Frozen, except it takes it too far. So my concern is not with the trend, but the damage that can come from running the trend into the ground.Kait wrote:I wasn't defending the movie because I haven't seen it. I was defending the "new trend."
Fallacy of false continuum. // bookworm
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Of course there’s going to be hints of the current trend, it’s unavoidable since this is from the same studio, but I didn’t get the impression that it was an intentional statement in this movie. I don’t think they made a thematic decision of ‘Not a single decent guy!’ I think there weren’t any simply because there aren’t any in this story. The two main characters are female, the movie is about their relationship and therefore focused primarily on them. There are no notable male characters, not because it’s anti-male or pro-female, but just because that’s how this story is.
I certainly don't think Disney or the creators of this particular film are in any way "anti-male" (although I'm certainly pleased that they are pro-female), however I think you're wrong about there being "no notable male characters." Stefan is a very important character to the film. As children, his and Maleficent's relationship is what signals a potential for peace and harmony, virtues that Maleficent shapes her identity around and places her faith in. Then, when the film pulls a Lord of the Rings-esque fantasy trope ("Men are weak and will always give into temptation"), Stefen ceases to become a relatable character and instead becomes a symbol for man's inevitable corruption, justifying Maleficent's character transformation into a sympathetic villain. In this metaphorical context, the fairy world is an idealized representation of femininity and the human world is a demonized representation of masculinity. This is confirmed whenbookworm wrote:There are no notable male characters, not because it’s anti-male or pro-female, but just because that’s how this story is.
Fallacy of false continuum. // bookworm
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
I agree; I thought that was what you were saying. That all the males were bad or useless.Jelly wrote:I think you're wrong about there being "no notable male characters." Stefan is a very important character to the film.
As for Phillip, that supports my take, not yours I think.
Again, if this were any other movie you would be correct; but it’s not. They didn’t write him in, he was already written in. The story of Sleeping Beauty was already laid down, they had to work within that with their retelling.Jelly wrote:
bookworm... I'm not really sure how you do it, but somehow your applied logic always manages to overcomplicate basic topics to the point that I don't even really know what we're discussing anymore. As for your defense of Sleeping Beauty, I don't think there's much there to stand on. To call Disney's Maleficent an adaptation of Sleeping Beauty is way too generous. It's branded as a "reworking," but really it's unique to itself (disregarding the fact that it borrows heavily from various cliche'd fantasy tropes). Anyone can take the characters from one story and craft their own story using the same characters. That doesn't mean the storyteller is staying true in any way to the original story. This is especially the case if the artistic integrity of the original piece is changed or distorted. Like, for example, what Peter Jackson did with The Hobbit. I don't blame the problems with the Hobbit movies on J.R.R Tolkien, I blame them on the fact that Tolkien's themes and intentions were misrepresented by the filmmakers. Likewise, I don't blame Maleficent's problems on the Brothers Grimm. I blame them on the filmmakers.
Fallacy of false continuum. // bookworm
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Look, I've pointed out things that I didn't like about the movie. Things that felt weak or devoid of real artistic quality or integrity. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But now you seem to be trying to excuse those things by saying, "Yeah, but that's only because it's an adaptation of this other story." I'm very familiar with Sleeping Beauty and what was changed/wasn't changed for the sake of Disney's "expansion" of the story. And in the end, I strongly felt that Disney's film had some major problems. It really has nothing to do with the story it was "expanded" from. I'm not really sure why you're so adamant about making a point, or even what your point is.bookworm wrote:I don’t know why you aren’t grasping, or at least accepting, this concept, but once again: This wasn’t ‘You know what would be fun, let’s redo Sleeping Beauty ’ this was ‘You know what would be interesting, let’s expand Sleeping Beauty. Show the untold story.’ So yes, this absolutely is working within the original; that is the entire purpose. The idea is that the original story of Sleeping Beauty was told either with a bias against Maleficent, or simply on a basis of incomplete information on her motivations and what actually happened, and this movie is correcting and/or filling in those previously unknown pieces.
Fallacy of false continuum. // bookworm
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Not excuse, explain. Especially in relation to the prince, which seems to be one of your primary complaints.Jelly wrote:you seem to be trying to excuse those things by saying, "Yeah, but that's only because it's an adaptation of this other story."
Because I think your disappointments are coming from a misunderstanding of what this movie is. Your comparison to The Hobbit highlights it. I completely understand your point there, The Hobbit the movie is not The Hobbit the book, and by all means fault the filmmakers for the problems you find there. But that’s a different situation. The Hobbit movie is its own entity, borrowing the book’s characters but telling its own story. It should be a representation of the original story, but as you said it doesn’t have to be, and obviously it didn’t end up being one.Jelly wrote:I'm not really sure why you're so adamant about making a point, or even what your point is.
This movie though is not that kind of thing. It’s not an attempt to redo Sleeping Beauty from a clean slate. This movie does not replace Sleeping Beauty, it goes with it. This is not a new story, it’s a parallel story. Everything that happened in Sleeping Beauty still happened, and what happens in this movie happened also. Taking the two together reveals the full story.
To offer another example, use the Narnia movies. The Dawn Treader movie was much different than the book. That was how the filmmakers decided to interpret it, fine. It’s a faulty adaptation. The book is one thing and the movie is another.
But this movie to Sleeping Beauty is not like that, but like Wicked to The Wizard of Oz. You don’t take one or the other, you take both. Wicked isn’t saying ‘This is the new Oz story, the original didn’t happen this is all its own thing.’ Both of them happened, they tell the same story from two different angles. The new doesn’t replace the old, it expands it. That’s what this movie is.
And, once more, that’s why the prince has to be there. Because this isn’t a new story where they could have just left him out. He was there in the original so he has to be there in this, because this doesn’t replace the original story, it goes alongside it.
The concept is all I’m trying to explain, I’m not saying you’re wrong to find faults in the story with it in mind. If you understand that this and Sleeping Beauty both happen, and take issue with some things they decided to develop, that’s fine. But that’s not the message I was getting from your posts. You kept saying ‘The prince was useless, why did they have the prince not do anything?’ which should be something easily understood if you’re taking the two movies as one story, not this new movie as a replacement of the old. That’s all.
This isn't even close to being true.bookworm wrote:This movie though is not that kind of thing. It’s not an attempt to redo Sleeping Beauty from a clean slate. This movie does not replace Sleeping Beauty, it goes with it. This is not a new story, it’s a parallel story. Everything that happened in Sleeping Beauty still happened, and what happens in this movie happened also. Taking the two together reveals the full story.
Ultimately, no. No it isn't. If you liked the movie and you're trying to defend it, that's fine. But you can't make claims that aren't true.bookworm wrote:The new doesn’t replace the old, it expands it. That’s what this movie is.
Fallacy of false continuum. // bookworm
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait
Any cupcake can be made holy through being baptized in the name of the Butter, the Vanilla and the Powdered Sugar. // Kait