Maleficent, Darling, Simply Maleficent

[Yellowstonetim]

"Hans! He was great. A nice guy, when leading in Anna's absence, a good guy (because he loves being in power) but greedy and selfish in the end."

Hmm. That's another very interesting take! I would, however, respectfully disagree.

The moment they revealed Hans was evil, they undid most of his past character development. Because all of his interaction with Anna was revealed to be a sham, as he was playing her, we really don't know who he is. Even the character traits he showed during his time "wooing" Anna were limp at best.

He was shown as being:

*Sweet... very sweet ("nice" falls into this category as well)
*Hungry for love (that's the vibe he gave with his whole brothers story, and the fact that he proposed to Anna so quickly... and even the title of their love song pointed toward this)
*Romantic?
*Funny?

The last two are me grasping at straws, because I honestly can't remember any other character traits he displayed.

The scene where he was helping the people of Arendelle by giving out supplies also seemed fake to me. It could've been because he liked being in charge/being in a position of power, but I'm more inclined to believe that he did it solely so that no one would be suspicious of his intentions or anything like that, and so that his future subjects would already like him when he took over because of how kind he was to them during those rough times. Or something like that.

I don't think we can explain those actions away by simply being power hungry and enjoying being in command.

I could be wrong and Hans might be deeper than all this... but I honestly think he was just putting on a front.

And what does that mean? It means Hans is left with only:

*Deceptiveness/manipulativeness
*Evilness/power-hunger/greed

Wonderful! We have no explanation for why he's like this, just that he wants power and he's evil. Which isn't a cliché at all.

Also, why the heck did they have to make him evil?! I'll admit that I thought the plot twist was pretty cool, but it also was such a cheap move! Many people who saw Frozen thought it was ridiculous that they had to go and solve the Anna-Kristoff-Hans love triangle by making Hans the villain, and I have to kind of agree. It did come off just like a quick and easy way to solve Anna's love woes, and also, a cheap way to give the film a villain (which was weird because the movie had made a big deal about having "no villain" since Elsa wasn't actually evil). It would've been nice if they hadn't given us a villain, considering pretty much every Disney movie in existence has one.

And you know what else? Instead of giving us a great villain with real depth and characterization, they give us Hans. Hans. He's like the biggest ripoff from the Cliché Movie Villain Handbook out there. The only thing that made him original was that in the beginning of the movie, they make us think he's one of the "good guys." But that was just him being a power-hungry, manipulative, evil...

Eh, you get my point.

Hans wasn't a great villain, he was a realistic person. He was the 13th son of the King in a society that is all about position and power. 13th! He sings to Anna about how much he wants his own place! He so wants to be a King, but his brothers probably always let him know he would never even be dog catcher. Like real villains, he isn't all bad and is more complex. He probably wants to be a good King. Yes he is fake to some degree. But he probably was having a blast being left in charge of Arendelle! He was in charge of something, FINALLY! In fact, maybe he didn't even plan the murder until he got to taste this wonderful feeling of being in charge of a kingdom. And note how he ordered them not to harm Elsa. Either he is halfway decent and gives into temptation when he finds Anna smitten, or he is one dastardly calculating bad guy.

Either way, it is important that he turn bad and has his character development undone! There is a major point in this movie about not marrying someone you just met. Why? Because the world is full of Hans's whom are wonderful when you meet them but turn out to be real life villains! This lesson would have no punch without Hans being exactly who he was. What a great lesson for kids!

Also, since this thread was originally about Maleficent before I came along and ruined it, I feel I should note that everything I just said about Hans could also be applied to Stefan. The only real difference between the two is that Stefan spiraled into madness and showed at least something resembling love (maybe obsession? a territorial devotion?) for his daughter Aurora. Stefan is more complex than Hans, to be sure, but he definitely shares some of Hans's clichés and flaws as a character.

Any time you have a guy turn bad that can be called a cliché, just like any time you have a hero. Both are still needed for the story.

Okay, let me quote once again what you said about Kristoff, this time in bold:


Those three traits would indeed be interesting if those were just the beginning of Kristoff's development. The problem is, Kristoff's development and traits begin and end at "nice," "helpful," and "not a wimp." If that is all Kristoff is as a character, he's pretty dull.

Yes, Kristoff was very helpful to Anna. He was also pretty sweet to her. He was also not a wimp in the slightest. But that's it. Seriously, in a movie that has a character as complex and dimensional as Elsa, how can there possibly be a character as weak as Kristoff?!

Normally, I would say that they had time constraints to deal with, and it's a kids movie so we shouldn't be expecting too much, blah blah blah... but I'm not even going to say that here, because Kristoff's lack of characterization is just inexcusable to me.

The older princess movies, like Snow White or Cinderella, show a notable lack of characterization. I still love them, and you can pardon these sins as being a flaw of the era in which they came out rather than a flaw of the writers. Back then, women were still expected to be somewhat submissive and pretty passive, so it only makes sense movies would reflect that. Sad, yes, but understandable.

Nowadays, people have a much higher standard for the characterization in Disney movies. We've been spoiled with films like Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Mulan (just to name a few). Yet Kristoff, who's really a pretty lackluster character, particularly when compared to Elsa or even Anna, slips through the cracks somehow. No one even notices that Anna's main love interest has all of three character traits and not much else. It was one of my biggest pet peeves about Frozen... and I liked Kristoff. I did. I just thought he was so completely underdeveloped, which wouldn't have been too bad if, you know, he was a minor character... but he wasn't.

I will give him props for being somehow likable despite that, though.

That said, I found myself hoping Anna would end up with Hans (who, of course, isn't that developed either, but compared to Kristoff...). I was pretty disappointed when she ended up with Kristoff, honestly. Even though they'd known each other for a shorter span of time, Anna had actually learned more about Hans and his personality than she did about Kristoff during the whole time they spent together. (Not that she learned that much about Hans, and yes, of course it was all lies... but if it weren't, at least she had an idea of who he was. With Kristoff, the deepest thing she knew about him was that he was raised by trolls.)

To me, Kristoff is only a small step up from the princes of the old Disney films, whom we knew next to nothing about but were still supposed to want the princess to end up with (Prince Charming, Prince Philip, the prince from Snow White, etc.). Kristoff has more depth than they do, of course, but he's still pretty bland on the scale of things. Yet somehow, we're supposed to want Anna to choose him over Hans -- who, up to the whole evil plot twist thing, had seemed like a much better and more reliable pick.



That's a wonderful point, and very true. For example, you mentioned Timon and Pumba above and I very nearly went into quipping about their lack of development as characters (yes, they're both pretty original characters and Pumba shows a bit of unexplained dimension, but as a whole they struck me as mostly there for comic relief and not much else), but the truth is, I couldn't because I love The Lion King so much that it's hard to really criticize anything about it. Even Timon and Pumba.

I still love movies if they have good story lines or characters or whatever, but I'm also acutely aware of flaws. That's the reason I consider Frozen to be an awesome movie, and Maleficent to be really good, but still write long posts like these critiquing every single thing wrong with them.

(And this is just me criticizing Frozen's character development. If I were to talk about its plot, originality, and other such major things -- which I wouldn't, as this thread's not even about Frozen and that would be just plain topic-hijacking -- I could easily go on and on about its dead-parents cliché, Elsa's unexplained powers, those annoying trolls which were really just thinly-veiled deus ex machina, the fact that it relied way too much on its admittedly amazing music, the cheesy and cliché "act of true love" thing, the predictability... et cetera, et cetera. )

I couldn't disagree more about Kristoff. I thought he was wonderful. He was a partner to Anna. He deferred to her at times, led her at times, was strong, helpful, argumentative. Not one dimensional at all! In fact, he was a perfect match for Anna, and I do mean match. Marriage should be a partnership and these two learned to work together without one being subservient to the other while having different personalities. That is what a real relationship - a real healthy relationship - is like. And I disagree with the bold. She spent way more time actually doing things, working, making decisions, etc. with Kristoff. She only sang with Hans.

I don't mind the trolls, but they did seem out-of-place somehow.

I better keep my mouth shut about Lion King. It is my daughters favorite, too. But I don't think it is all that great. I think Frozen is WAY better.

Happy off topic story: Took my now adult daughter to see Lion King 3D since Lion King was her "THE Disney movie of her childhood." We sat in a row of Dad's with little daughters. Little girl next to Rachel told her she was here with her Daddy. Rachel, says, "I'm here with my Daddy, too!" One of those great moments. We had fun. Our whole family are Disney & movie fans.

 

[Natara]

Great points, all of them! You actually made me think twice about a lot of my flaws.

The pixies in the original were idiots, they just made them fat, adorable, grandmotherly idiots. I didn't think these were much different. I didn't find these terrible, thought they were mildly amusing. But seeing where the story was going, they needed to be poor caretakers. Plus you want people to like Maleficent so it requires making other characters on the other side less appealing.

Yes, that's definitely true. The pixies do need to be a bit on the dim side for the movie to work as it did, i.e., poor caretakers. And I think you made a very good point that making other characters less appealing made Maleficent seem more charming, to be sure.

At the same time, I would've loved for the pixies to have been shown to have at least some positive qualities. They really didn't have any. Admittedly, I'm not sure about the fairies from the original as I've never seen it (I have seen lots of clips of the original and read the basic story of it online in several different summaries, as well as studied Aurora for an article I did a while back on the evolution of Disney princesses -- but I'm not very familiar with the fairies and only recently learned their names from the original film, to be honest! ), but I feel like Maleficent strayed enough from the original that changing the pixies' personalities wouldn't have been a big deal. I actually think it would've worked well.

In fact, I would've loved it if they made the pixies somewhat despicable. That actually would've been more interesting than if they were likable or wise, which I was originally thinking about. Go with me on this -- what if the pixies were bitter about having to raise Aurora? What if they weren't dim at all, or poor caretakers, they just didn't really care about her one way or another and were only begrudgingly taking her in?

That would've been an interesting twist. It also would've made me sympathize with Aurora more, at having to be raised by three pixies that were on the cruel side.

But, I suppose it's no use crying over spilled milk! The pixies don't ruin the movie for me, and on my list of flaws, they're a pretty small one.

While I could see a redeemed Maleficent dying - maybe dying to save Aurora. I think Disney knows most people LOVE HAPPY ENDING! It's Disney, I love a happy ending. It would have been better had they used a little more time to tell you something, but this is entertainment and I want my happy ending.

Yes, I like the idea of her dying to save Aurora, or something else poetically bittersweet. Of course I really didn't expect her to die at the end once she became good; Disney, like you said, does do happy endings exceptionally well, since that's what their audience want to see (I'm in the minority here -- I love a tragic and dark ending more than anything... even in a Disney movie). It's their thing. Killing off Maleficent, no matter how beautiful, might not have been a very popular choice. Not after they spent the whole movie trying to get the audience to sympathize with her!

Maleficent was and is one of my favorite villains. Now I can have my cake and eat it too!! She is one of my favorite villains AND one of my favorite heroes. I love it!

That's a good point! It is pretty cool that who's arguably Disney's most infamous villain can now be seen as a hero, as well.

Regardless of its flaws, I still do hope they make more movies like this. Live-action twists on animated classics, particularly from the villain's POV, are just so terribly fun.

While I agree it could have been longer, I think Stefan's dismissal of his returned daughter is part of the story. He doesn't really lover her. She's been gone her entire life and he has paid no attention. He doesn't know her. And he has become consumed with his greed for power, and his guilt, and gone a little crazy. Since his wife got sick, he lost his last connection with sanity and goodness. His behavior was appropriate for a selfish, guilt ridden, lonely, greedy despot.

Mmm. Very intriguing.

To me, it seemed surprising as he devoted so much of his time trying to keep her safe. But you make an excellent point that he has become pretty detached from her at this point, so caught up in making Maleficent pay he's forgotten the whole reason he wanted revenge to begin with.

If they had made the scene where he and Aurora see each other longer, I definitely think it would've helped. His reaction still seemed odd to me, even taking the above into account. The dialogue was almost painful (and I suppose they might've been aiming for that, as it's an uncomfortable moment -- but nevertheless, it just felt so very weird and somehow unsatisfying).

But you have love, family, and balance in your life, Maleficent doesn't. Remember this is a hurt vengeful lonely Maleficent (She lost her parents young and has no other creatures like her that we could see.) and she spends all these years watching this wonderful innocent child grow and stays close. Probably at first out of curiosity and an evil desire to watch over and gloat over her victim in what amounts to the longest, slowest, death of vengeance ever. But, all that time with her turned her.

That's true as well. I just felt like she would've been at least a little more hesitant to jump in... The last time she let herself love someone, she lost her wings. I would've expected some bigger trust issues because of that, more of a hesitance to fully let herself enjoy Aurora.

Even if it wasn't a flaw, I still would've loved to see more interaction between Maleficent and Aurora just because that's really what the movie is about at its core. It was dissatisfying to see so little time devoted to them really getting to know one another.

I am 54 and my children have grown. At my age children are so amazingly adorable and I have adopted grandkids at church that I do things with. The power of an innocent child to teach you about love cannot be underestimated. I would like more shown, but I understood right away what turned Maleficent. Anyone of a dozen children I know would! Oh, and Aurora loved nature and the Moors like Maleficent did. That means a lot!

I'm fifteen, so I can't say I fully understand this as well as you. I'm sure once I have children, that will change, but until then it's harder to entirely comprehend Maleficent's sudden devotion to Aurora.

What you said at the end was an interesting point, about Aurora loving nature and the Moors. I can see that as indeed appealing to Maleficent, as well as Aurora's goodness. There were even some similarities between Aurora and Child Maleficent. They shared some traits that might've endeared Aurora to Grownup Maleficent even more.

All of it's very interesting to ponder...

I am not sure what else they could do with Aurora without distracting from the story. They showed how sweet and innocent she was. How loving and open, and how she loved nature. Elle did a great job at this.

That's true, too. I just wish they had given her more dimension as a character, beyond just loving and sweet and innocent. In fact, like with the pixies, I would've enjoyed it if they made Aurora quite different from the Sleeping Beauty version of her. I would've loved it if they made her more like Merida from Brave, or Belle. More headstrong and outspoken. Sure, I suppose you could argue that she is headstrong and outspoken, to an extent... but not really. Certainly her headstrong side is downplayed quite a bit in comparison to her lovely, charming, go-with-the-flow sweet side.

I would've loved to have seen a kind of Warrior Aurora, for lack of a better term. Someone who knows what she wants when she wants it, who isn't afraid to ask questions, who voices her opinion even when no one wants to hear it... a more modern, capable version of her.

In fact, I think it would've been cool if they made the gifts the pixies bestowed upon Aurora something more to that effect. Like the gift of quick wit or determination or perceptiveness, or boldness or tenacity... et cetera, et cetera.

I think they kind of missed an opportunity there. If they were going to completely retell the story, then they should've retold Aurora as someone a bit more interesting.

Subtle hints. Stefan wasn't all that nice a kid. His first meeting with Maleficent happened because he stole a jewel of some kind. It was a hint about his character. Even at a young age he was developing greed and avarice. Unfortunately the shallow power-hungry half-mad king (Or politician) is all too real! I also think his greed and his guilt with a lack of repentance that turned to paranoia is a key part of the story and the reason he goes nuts.

You're definitely right about the foreshadowing! But let us not forget he was also shown as being pretty sweet. After all, he threw away his piece of jewelry just because Maleficent couldn't bear the material it was made out of. They also carried on a friendship for many years; he had to have been pretty good, or else I don't think Maleficent would've pursued that relationship.

Which is why I think Stefan's development was a bit lacking. Everything you said about him made sense, and creates a very vivid and intriguing character... but the issue is, they didn't show the audience as well as they should have this transformation. They gave us snippets of it, at best. And some of those snippets were lacking, to say the least (the parts where his insanity is evidenced by talking to himself and such came out of nowhere, as they never really foreshadowed his future instability at all; additionally, the "crazy scenes" seemed a bit cliché to me and without much depth... too obvious, I guess you could say).

Stefan's still interesting. Just a bit underdeveloped. Again, a little extra time and more caution to avoid clichés could've easily smoothed out his wrinkles.

Ha! This is another one that it either/or. A large number of critics said the CGI was awful and they couldn't stand it, another large number of critics said the CGI world was breathtaking, the best part of the movie, and the movie worth seeing for the CGI alone! Some love CGI, some hate it. I loved it, but wished they could have spent more time with some of those interesting creatures.

I did think some of the CGI was pretty beautiful. My issue is that those creatures you mentioned seemed thrown in for no real reason. Yes, I guess you could say it was to give us an idea of what this place Maleficent lived in was really like -- but considering the fact they never farther explored those creatures, it seemed to me just like an excuse to throw more CGI at the audience!

I actually think making Maleficent's neck of the woods empty would've been more compelling. Without those creatures surrounding her, it would've made her seem more isolated, and made her relationship with Stefan, in my opinion, more believable. If she had no one else around her, she would've been eager to befriend him, and maybe more blind to his faults (thereby allowing his later evilness and greed to not come out of almost nowhere).

Of course, if she didn't live in a forest filled with unusual and magical creatures, that would've changed a lot of the film's structure. I, personally, would've preferred it that way. If they took the whole war element out (i.e., not had the two kingdoms feuding with one another), it would've given them more time to devote to characterization and a stronger plot.

They could've had Maleficent be the last of her kind, with the pixies being the only other type of magical beings anywhere in the world. The difference is the pixies are "friends" of the kingdom, while Maleficent is powerful enough to potentially "damage" the kingdom and other surrounding areas. Because of this, the old king wanted her dead and sent Stefan to do it. He cuts off her wings instead, blah blah blah, movie is made. It would've made the story more to the point and, in my opinion, better. (This, of course, is just one idea -- there's so many other ways they could've told the story without the somewhat clichéd war element.)

I would've liked it better without the war, and without all the strange, magical creatures. But that might just be me.

He cannot be too much in this story, but this is another item that might have been better with a little more time to flesh him out.

I think they should've left Philip out entirely. What did he add to the film? He didn't wake Aurora up from her eternal sleep. He didn't share a dance with her or anything similar to that in the woods. They might as well have done away with the character entirely, in my opinion.

I am very glad you can see all the flaws, evaluate yourself, and still like the movie. It is, after all, just an entertaining story. Too many critics get so tied up in all the technical things they critique, that they forget that it is entertainment and condemn very good movies that tell a good story in spite of any technical flaws.

VERY true point about critics! It's sad so many of them can't appreciate movies for their entertainment value.

Absolutely LOVED Les Miserables. It was amazing!

I should say that I adore Les Misérables. Like, really adored it.

But it's still an incredibly flawed film. In terms of faults, Les Mis comparatively makes Frozen look flawless.

Either way, I still think it's amazing and will happily watch it over and over and over again.

You have to have things that you except and move on with the story. I don't need to know how and why Elsa was born with these powers. She was. Don't waste time with the how and why, get on with the story.

I should note that I originally didn't care about Elsa's powers. But after speaking with a friend of mine (who hated everything about Frozen, except for the music), who brought up the fact that Elsa's powers are never explained, it kind of ate away at me.

One of the reasons why is because there's a line in the film. It's when Elsa and Anna's parents take Anna to the deus ex machina -- err, I mean, the trolls -- to seek help, right at the beginning of the film. And the trolls ask the parents something along the lines of, "Was she born with it or cursed?"

(This probably isn't exactly what they said, but it was something similar in regards to Elsa's powers.)

This is what made me curious. So, if Elsa was born with her powers, then is it genetic? Did her grandmother have it? If she did, how come the entire kingdom seems so shocked when they find out Elsa has them too? Was her grandmother locked away in a room wearing gloves like Elsa was? Is that how she kept it a secret?

And you can curse someone with these powers in the Frozen universe? How?! Are there witches in this world, too?

And seriously -- how the heck do the trolls know about these powers, anyway?! Is there some kind of "Big Book of Weird Powers" that they own and no one else does? Did they create the affliction? If so, why would they do that?!

And later in the film, how do they know that an "act of true love" can save Anna? How do they know any of this?!

Oh, wait. That's right. The trolls are deus ex machina and nothing else so we shouldn't question their knowledge. Of course.

I feel like right there, during the beginning of the movie, as her parents are talking with the trolls, they could've at least given one line to Elsa's powers. Something that, if not explains them, sums them up in a way that's believable enough that the audience doesn't have to give it any more thought once they leave the theater.

Oh, and here's one more bit of food for thought -- how do Elsa's parents know the trolls?!

It just doesn't make sense. Even for a movie with a talking snowman.

A good example is when Anna finds Elsa in the Ice Castle and they sing a duet. Neither is listening to the other. Elsa is consumed with fear and doubt and is upset she can't be selfish. Anna is not listening to Elsa at all and is going to fix everything if only Elsa will do it Anna's way! Boy was that exchange honest for these two personalities. I bet there are sisters (and brothers) going, "Oh Anna is so YOU!" "Yeah, well Elsa is so, You!"

Haha, that's very true! I loved that song. The conflicting voices and the different emotions it conveyed was certainly something to behold, and wonderfully reflected the sisters' relationship.

Either way, it is important that he turn bad and has his character development undone! There is a major point in this movie about not marrying someone you just met. Why? Because the world is full of Hans's whom are wonderful when you meet them but turn out to be real life villains! This lesson would have no punch without Hans being exactly who he was. What a great lesson for kids!

Interesting... I guess that is a good message to send kids, now that I think about it! And I am glad that she didn't end up with him since they had only just met. Making them not fall in love at the end/get married was like squashing one of Disney's ultimate princess-movie clichés: The "as soon as you meet a guy that likes you and/or kisses you, it'll be true love, even if you don't know his name" one.

I couldn't disagree more about Kristoff. I thought he was wonderful. He was a partner to Anna. He deferred to her at times, led her at times, was strong, helpful, argumentative. Not one dimensional at all! In fact, he was a perfect match for Anna, and I do mean match. Marriage should be a partnership and these two learned to work together without one being subservient to the other while having different personalities. That is what a real relationship - a real healthy relationship - is like. And I disagree with the bold. She spent way more time actually doing things, working, making decisions, etc. with Kristoff. She only sang with Hans.

Oh, I wouldn't argue that she definitely did more with Kristoff during their time together. That's for sure. I just think that she learned more about Hans during their shorter, less productive time together than she did with Kristoff.

Really, what did she learn about Kristoff during their time together? The deepest thing he told her, as I said in my last post, was that he was raised by trolls. And he only let her in on that because he had to; she needed help, thanks to Elsa's accidental ice blast.

With Hans, he volunteered his backstory to her, and didn't just tell her it because he had to (granted, he might've been telling her about his brothers just to use her emotional response against her, i.e., toy with her for his own purposes... but still). She really didn't learn all that much about Kristoff despite the fact that they spent far more time together.

That said, I do agree that they worked well together, and admired the fact that neither one of them was exactly 'in charge' or leading the other. They rotated that position. I think that was nice to see; I just wish Kristoff had more depth and development so that I could root for him and Anna to end up together in good conscience.

I don't mind the trolls, but they did seem out-of-place somehow.

Precisely! It's because they were, as I said, VERY thinly-veiled deus ex machina. Also, their "Fixer-Upper" song was the only song in the entire movie that I disliked. That I strongly disliked.

I better keep my mouth shut about Lion King. It is my daughters favorite, too. But I don't think it is all that great. I think Frozen is WAY better.

*gasp*

That's really interesting, and really shocking, at the same time. I say this because I've met two kinds of people: people who hate Frozen, and people who adore it. Even those that adore it never say it's better than the The Lion King; I've met people who regard such a statement as borderline blasphemy.

I've met people who liked it as much as The Lion King, but never more. And even the "as much" people were few and far between.

Similarly, I've only met two or three people that didn't absolutely love TLK. Most people (myself included) are die-hard Lion King fans.

So this is just very curious to me, I have to say.

Happy off topic story: Took my now adult daughter to see Lion King 3D since Lion King was her "THE Disney movie of her childhood." We sat in a row of Dad's with little daughters. Little girl next to Rachel told her she was here with her Daddy. Rachel, says, "I'm here with my Daddy, too!" One of those great moments. We had fun. Our whole family are Disney & movie fans.

Awww! That's very sweet.

Now I wish I had seen TLK:3D with my dad!

Oh goodness, this is long. I'll go away now; I have a feeling if I post any more of these long replies, I'll break the site!

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Admittedly, I'm not sure about the fairies from the original as I've never seen it (I have seen lots of clips of the original and read the basic story of it online in several different summaries, as well as studied Aurora for an article I did a while back on the evolution of Disney princesses --

You must watch the original. It is very interesting. It is in a different animation style from other Disney movies. It would have been better to see it first, but oh well. Watch the original a few times and then watch Maleficent again. For one thing, the Christening scene in Maleficent is an awesome live action recreation of the original. A few changes, but the style is amazing and Jolie nails the original almost word for word.

-- what if the pixies were bitter about having to raise Aurora?

Very interesting idea.

I'm fifteen, so I can't say I fully understand this as well as you. I'm sure once I have children, that will change, but until then it's harder to entirely comprehend Maleficent's sudden devotion to Aurora.

You write and discuss very well for 15. You are 10 years younger than my youngest, my daughter. Yes, when you are older and have kids, you will see. Maleficent wasn't just won over by a child, but by 16 years of a beautiful child growing up.

What you said at the end was an interesting point, about Aurora loving nature and the Moors. I can see that as indeed appealing to Maleficent, as well as Aurora's goodness. There were even some similarities between Aurora and Child Maleficent. They shared some traits that might've endeared Aurora to Grownup Maleficent even more.

Maleficent saw someone who was sweet and innocent and not the person she had cursed. When she did the curse, the child was just a "thing" to be used to hurt Stefan. But as the child grew, her pain and anger slowly lessened, and she came to realize that Aurora was a wonderful and innocent child and not the "thing" she should have used. 16 years is a long time to watch and interact with a child. For an adult it would be hard not to love them like a parent.

I would've loved to have seen a kind of Warrior Aurora, for lack of a better term. Someone who knows what she wants when she wants it, who isn't afraid to ask questions, who voices her opinion even when no one wants to hear it... a more modern, capable version of her.

Yes that would have been cool. I love Merida, but had they done that the movie would no longer have been about Maleficent and many would have cried that this has become the new troupe. Every princess has to carry a sword and whoop the men!

I think they should've left Philip out entirely. What did he add to the film? He didn't wake Aurora up from her eternal sleep. He didn't share a dance with her or anything similar to that in the woods.

But that would lose the punch line. They couldn't leave him out. It was important he "fail."

I should note that I originally didn't care about Elsa's powers. But after speaking with a friend of mine (who hated everything about Frozen, except for the music), who brought up the fact that Elsa's powers are never explained, it kind of ate away at me.

Ignore the haters. It isn't important. Like a rare disease it has cropped up again. A little mystery is a good thing, and it is something to explore in Frozen 2. Or 3. It is important to know it wasn't a curse from an enemy, that is all.

This is what made me curious. So, if Elsa was born with her powers, then is it genetic? Did her grandmother have it? If she did, how come the entire kingdom seems so shocked when they find out Elsa has them too? Was her grandmother locked away in a room wearing gloves like Elsa was? Is that how she kept it a secret? And you can curse someone with these powers in the Frozen universe? How?! Are there witches in this world, too?

Wonderful mysteries to be explored and explained in Frozen 2 or 3 or in books. There was a prophecy about the Ice Queen, so maybe this does happen once in a while.

And seriously -- how the heck do the trolls know about these powers, anyway?! ... And later in the film, how do they know that an "act of true love" can save Anna? How do they know any of this?!

Oh, and here's one more bit of food for thought -- how do Elsa's parents know the trolls?!

In many a story there are creatures, wizards, shamans, or other special characters that advise the King and hold the understanding of magic. That is the role of these trolls. They recognized and responded to the King as king when he arrived. This is probably something that is a secret for many reasons. The royal family is privy to this secret and probably a few trusted advisers. Makes perfect sense to me.

Oh, I wouldn't argue that she definitely did more with Kristoff during their time together. That's for sure. I just think that she learned more about Hans during their shorter, less productive time together than she did with Kristoff.

Really, what did she learn about Kristoff during their time together? The deepest thing he told her, as I said in my last post, was that he was raised by trolls. With Hans, he volunteered his backstory to her, and didn't just tell her it because he had to. She really didn't learn all that much about Kristoff despite the fact that they spent far more time together.

That said, I do agree that they worked well together, and admired the fact that neither one of them was exactly 'in charge' or leading the other. They rotated that position. I think that was nice to see; I just wish Kristoff had more depth and development so that I could root for him and Anna to end up together in good conscience.

You will learn this one yourself! When evaluating a person, what people tell you about themselves is of small value, what they do is of great value, and nothing beats going through trials together and watching how they deal with the trials, others, and you. Many a person has thought they found the perfect match, only to find out when the rubber met the road they were not the kind of person they expected. Kristoff showed his metal through his behavior under fire, not his sweet singing under no duress.

*gasp*

That's really interesting, and really shocking, at the same time. I say this because I've met two kinds of people: people who hate Frozen, and people who adore it. Even those that adore it never say it's better than the The Lion King; I've met people who regard such a statement as borderline blasphemy.

I've met people who liked it as much as The Lion King, but never more. And even the "as much" people were few and far between. Similarly, I've only met two or three people that didn't absolutely love TLK. Most people (myself included) are die-hard Lion King fans. So this is just very curious to me, I have to say.

I don't hate the Lion King, it is cute and has some great music. But it isn't totally original. It is Shakespeare's Hamlet with lions. A wonderful movie, but not Disney's greatest. I like Beauty and the Beast, Tangled, Frozen, and 101 Dalmatians better. (101 was THE movie of my childhood).

I think 10 to 20 years from now, due to the amazing cultural phenomenon that has been Frozen, it will be considered the greatest Disney movie.

It has been great talking movies. Keep up the writing!

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Meanwhile, Maleficent has crossed $600 million world wide and will probably make over $650 and may crack $700 million. It is the 4th movie to cross $200 million domestically, AND it is the highest grossing original movie in 2014!!

Stay tuned.

 

[Kudrah]

Ok, so I actually came on here to see about some trip planning stuff. Then I was curious to see if anyone was talking about Maleficent. I just wrote a 10 page paper on it as a feminist revision of Sleeping Beauty and how it addresses gender constructs and the typical Fairytale Archetype.

I highly recommend reading the novelization. More backstory about Maleficent's parents, her feelings towards humans in general, Stefan's moral decline, etc. Also several key events vary from the screenplay, which flesh out the story even more.

I also suggest checking out the new coffee table book called 'Once Upon a Dream, from Perrault's Sleeping Beauty to Disney's Maleficent.'

I am enamored by the revision and feel that it is closely tied to the evolution that Disney has been undergoing since Tangled. The issues of consent, gender constructs and re-writing Maleficent as a fairy godmother are all consistent with this progression. There is also quite a bit of cinematic symbolism if you deconstruct the images. It's a magnificent film in many ways, but I agree it was rushed. I wish the extra material that is in the novel had been included in the screenplay- but I realize they were trying to keep it to a family-friendly length.

 

[tajz90]

Ok, so I actually came on here to see about some trip planning stuff. Then I was curious to see if anyone was talking about Maleficent. I just wrote a 10 page paper on it as a feminist revision of Sleeping Beauty and how it addresses gender constructs and the typical Fairytale Archetype.

.

My son wrote a 25 page ecofeminist critique of the movie. Maleficent really inspired deep thoughts in some of its viewers.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Ok, so I actually came on here to see about some trip planning stuff. Then I was curious to see if anyone was talking about Maleficent. I just wrote a 10 page paper on it as a feminist revision of Sleeping Beauty and how it addresses gender constructs and the typical Fairytale Archetype.

I highly recommend reading the novelization. More backstory about Maleficent's parents, her feelings towards humans in general, Stefan's moral decline, etc. Also several key events vary from the screenplay, which flesh out the story even more.

I also suggest checking out the new coffee table book called 'Once Upon a Dream, from Perrault's Sleeping Beauty to Disney's Maleficent.'

I am enamored by the revision and feel that it is closely tied to the evolution that Disney has been undergoing since Tangled. The issues of consent, gender constructs and re-writing Maleficent as a fairy godmother are all consistent with this progression. There is also quite a bit of cinematic symbolism if you deconstruct the images. It's a magnificent film in many ways, but I agree it was rushed. I wish the extra material that is in the novel had been included in the screenplay- but I realize they were trying to keep it to a family-friendly length.

Thanks so much, I am going to get both books! Care to share your paper?!

My son wrote a 25 page ecofeminist critique of the movie. Maleficent really inspired deep thoughts in some of its viewers.

Yes, it made me think very much, and I have friends - both men and women - who discussed the depth of this movie. Thank you Disney for something with a deeper meaning.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Maleficent continues to do well. It opened in Japan this weekend, its final market, and it is the first movie to unseat Frozen at #1 in 16 weeks! It is doing great and may make $50 million or more!

A little side note. I'm in D.C. for work this week so I went to the movies and watched Maleficent again. I saw something fantastic I completely missed the first two times:

Maleficent prophesied, or cursed, her own transformation at the Christening scene!! She says; "The child will grow in grace and beauty. And everyone who meets her will love her..." Isn't that interesting. Later Maleficent meets Aurora and comes to love her. The very words she spoke condemned Aurora, and the very words she spoke provided the path by which Maleficent was transformed and Aurora was saved. Cool.

 

[supernova]

I feel so left out here! As a straight adult male, I have zero time or interest in Maleficient or Frozen, pretty much the same way I will never ever watch an episode of Once Upon a Time. I've heard from too many Disney fans who feel that Disney didn't make a movie about Maleficient, but made a fairy movie about a character who happens to have the same name as the villain in Sleeping Beauty. Which is unfortunate, because as a life-long fan of the villains, I really wanted this to be an awesome film. Oh well. Not even for free on bootleg DVD will I be wasting time on this one.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

I feel so left out here! As a straight adult male, I have zero time or interest in Maleficient or Frozen, pretty much the same way I will never ever watch an episode of Once Upon a Time. I've heard from too many Disney fans who feel that Disney didn't make a movie about Maleficient, but made a fairy movie about a character who happens to have the same name as the villain in Sleeping Beauty. Which is unfortunate, because as a life-long fan of the villains, I really wanted this to be an awesome film. Oh well. Not even for free on bootleg DVD will I be wasting time on this one.

If you love the original Maleficent, at some point get a copy of Maleficent and watch from the wing-stealing scene to the Christening scene. I think you might like the Christening scene. Jolie is perfect as Maleficent and Christening scene is done perfectly to match the original. Jolie is all Villain here and it is fantastic. Then stop at the end of the Christening scene and don't go any further. You won't like it.

And I'm a straight male. Love OUAT, Frozen, Tangled, and all the princess movies. And Pride and Prejudice. And You've Got Mail. And I have a pink laptop...

But I have an awesome wife and am secure in my masculinity so I'll enjoy what I want.

 

[Natara]

*pops back in*

As a straight adult male, I have zero time or interest in Maleficient or Frozen, pretty much the same way I will never ever watch an episode of Once Upon a Time.

That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? There are plenty of straight, adult men that love Frozen and even Once Upon a Time... I'm sure Maleficent, as well.

Of course you're welcome to your opinion, and if Frozen, Maleficent and OUAT don't interest you, so be it. But I wouldn't endorse saying such a thing like said opinion is in relation to your gender/orientation -- some might take that as offensive, even. (Not that that's necessarily what you meant, but wording it as you did could make people interpret it that way.)

Also, if I may ask, why do you think Frozen is a girl's film? (That, at least, is what you seemed to be implying.) As someone who has actually seen it, I'd strongly beg to differ. Beyond the fact that the two main leads are women, the film doesn't come off as something only those with two X chromosomes could enjoy at all; I know plenty of boys and men who thoroughly loved it.

I'm a straight teenaged girl, and that's never stopped me from seeing films meant primarily for young boys. I'm glad it hasn't -- if I let that get in my way of enjoying or viewing a movie, I would've missed out on a lot of good movies!

I've heard from too many Disney fans who feel that Disney didn't make a movie about Maleficient, but made a fairy movie about a character who happens to have the same name as the villain in Sleeping Beauty. Which is unfortunate, because as a life-long fan of the villains, I really wanted this to be an awesome film. Oh well. Not even for free on bootleg DVD will I be wasting time on this one.

How do you know it wasn't an awesome film? You're going solely off what others have told you here, not your own, unbiased opinion. When and if you ever see the film, then you can criticize it all you want. But if you haven't seen it, basing your opinion off what others say is rather jejune.

I agree, though, that it probably isn't your cup of tea. The Maleficent of this film is really not a villain (beyond the Christening scene Yellowstonetim already mentioned -- you should definitely give that a look), and as you stated you're a lifelong fan of the villains, that could be pretty disappointing.

I feel so left out here!

Then go see the film and come back and join the discussion!

I personally just saw a movie I was pretty sure I was going to hate: Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead. It was on TV last night; I'd never seen it, didn't think the title sounded like something I'd ever in a million years be interested in, and what I found on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't terribly encouraging. But I gave it a shot anyway and actually found it to be quite entertaining! (Don't get me wrong, it's still kind of lousy. I mean, in no way would I ever recommend it to someone who's searching for true cinematic gold. But nevertheless I enjoyed it.)

Discriminating against films we think aren't our cup of tea or that are meant for a different demo is something I try to discourage myself and others from doing, as I find I actually like -- even, in some cases, love -- the films I normally wouldn't think are right for me. (Weekend at Bernie's, for example...) I would certainly recommend giving Frozen a chance, if nothing else, and maybe -- if you're feeling particularly adventurous -- Maleficent, as well.

They could surprise you!

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Well, it is close to wrap-up time for Maleficent, although it is still playing well in Japan and still in the top 20 in the US.

Maleficent has ended up being one of the biggest movies of 2014, one of the biggest original movies, one of the biggest non-superhero movies.

$715,778,635.00 is nothing to sneeze at. And if you did, dollar bills would be flying everywhere! Currently it has $232.9 million domestic and this may end up over $240 million and pass Oz the Great and Powerful. Oversees it is at $482.9 million a very, very, healthy sum. Overall it is about to pass Gravity and be the 61st highest grossing movie of all time. And Japan is still going.

The following article says it all about the original projections of failure and write-offs.

Kudos to all involved with this movie!

http://www.awardsdaily.com/blog/201...t-said-disney-would-lose-money-on-maleficent/

Remember when ‘experts’ said Disney would lose money on Maleficent?

"Who’s smiling a wicked smile now? Just 3 months ago, financial experts were predicting doom and gloom for Disney’s Maleficent. On April 1, Wall Street analyst Marci Ryvicker wrote that Maleficent “is maybe too dark and scary to be profitable… expectations for a Maleficent write-off seem relatively widespread.” Another analyst said, “It’s definitely in the ‘not a sure thing’ bucket.”

And you want to be my latex salesman?

Fast forward to July 28. Maleficent has already earned $715 million worldwide and it’s just getting started in Japan (where Frozen earned $254 million). Maleficent is within a few million of passing X-Men: Days of Future Past to become the 2nd biggest movie of 2014. X-Men has yet to open in Russia but Maleficent is currently raking in 3 times more per week than Marvel’s mutant cluster-folk. Sure, Maleficent is rumored to have cost as much as $180 million but that’s starting to look like money very well-spent.
Maybe giant CGI dragon lizards aren’t so awful after all. Maybe we need to stop pigeon-holing movies as “targeted at children, targeted at teens, targeted at women, targeted at adults.”

The most successful movies don’t get this close to a billion dollars unless they entertain all kinds of people of all ages. At this level of bank, it’s silly to claim any credit for catering to a narrow demographic.

Maleficent’s audience is 60 percent female and 51 percent over the age of 25. Families account for 45 percent of attendance. Yes, it’s great that 6 out of 10 people in the audience are female. Brava! But do the math. Without men buying tickets too, Maleficent would have only earned $427 million. And then the Wall Street analysts would have been right: It would have lost money. A lot of money.

The same way Godzilla would have bombed without the 42% of its audience who are women and 60% of its audience who are older than 25.
I wish we could please stop talking about movies being made for teenagers or made for males. Stop talking about movies made for women or made for adults.

The best movies are made for movie lovers. If they’re not, they crash and burn. Movies that are made for everyone can sometimes earn a billion dollars. I have trouble understanding why that’s a problem for some people."

 

[mominwasim]

Angelina Jolie is amazing as Maleficent. She shines here. She is a villain that we can root for. Sharlto Copley is good as Stefan. He is good playing villains. I liked him when he played Murdoch in the A-Team movie. Elle Fanning is also good as Aurora. Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Lesley Manville have a great on screen chemistry and are hilarious in the film.

 

[AngryJames]

That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? There are plenty of straight, adult men that love Frozen and even Once Upon a Time... I'm sure Maleficent, as well.

I'm a straight adult male, and I found Frozen enjoyable, though not as good as the classics like Snow White.

Maleficent was very well done. It was not the same story, and they said that at the end. It was a retelling of the original mythical story. That's how it was presented. I think it was great, and especially for children to have a slightly less simplistic take on it.

James

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Maleficent marches on in Japan and here in the US. It is the 3rd biggest movie of the summer in the U.S and the number two movie worldwide!
Here are a few articles:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...hr/news+(The+Hollywood+Reporter+-+Top+Stories)
"Another female property, Maleficent, also made news as it passed up X-Men: Days of Future Past ($744.7 million)to become the No. 2 title of the year so far at the global box office. The live-action fairy tale, starring Angelina Jolie, finished the weekend with $747.6 million in total worldwide ticket sales."

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/m...tion-film-in-japan-in-three-years-1201288047/

The Blu-ray is coming out November 4th, by the way!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Capt...Drive-Disney-Its-Best-Quarter-Ever-66633.html