Maleficent

[Airwings]

I also don't get why the Prince should be a well known actor? As long as he can act and IMO shallow opinion, is good looking, then that's all that matters.

Then why cast Elle Fanning in as Sleeping Beauty? They could have gone with an unknown there too.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Because perhaps she was the best actress for the job just like the guy playing the prince was the best actor for his role!

 

[Silvermoth]

^^ This guy gets it.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I'm a guy and I don't collect dolls ....but honestly, I would rather buy any of those villains dolls than those boring cookie cutter princess dolls.

In my opinion, the villains dolls look more interesting and gorgeous than the princess dolls.





[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B87xnFKlMtU[/YT]

How are these any less cookie cutter? Ursula and the Queen of Hearts are supposed to be fat. They don't want to change the plastic mold at the plant or something?

 

[Majik1387]

I'm a little annoyed by the Ursula one, not gonna lie, and I know some friends of mine are going to be offended that she's not bigger either. With the Queen of Hearts, it looks to be inspired by both the cartoon and the live action Queen, so her skinniness doesn't bother me much.

 

[Airwings]

Because perhaps she was the best actress for the job just like the guy playing the prince was the best actor for his role!

^^ This guy gets it.

Not completely true. In Hollywood, actors and actresses often gets hand-picked because of their stardom. That's the reason Jolie got to play the villain here. Well, perhaps there were other known stars who tried out for the part, but Angelina got it. I don't think they would have gone with an unkown Shakespeare actress just for her talent.

Or we can look at other films. Tom Cruise was casted as Ethan Hunt, and not some stage actor who's played all the classic stuff.

 

[Majik1387]

Jolie got the part because when Tim Burton was set to direct, he wanted Jolie; she expressed interest and then she was cast. No other actresses were up for Maleficent.

 

[Sawyer]

EW:

Angelina Jolie's daughter to play young Sleeping Beauty in 'Maleficent'
by Anthony Breznican

Talk about demonizing your mother!

Angelina Jolie’s 4-year-old daughter, Vivienne, will play a small role as the young Sleeping Beauty opposite her mother’s horn-sprouting villainess in Disney’s Maleficent, the studio announced today.

The movie, currently shooting in England, is a revisionist take on the 1959 animated film, told from the perspective of the evil fairy who curses Princess Aurora and causes her to fall into a deep, dark sleep.

Elle Fanning co-stars as the older version of Aurora, and Vivienne Jolie-Pitt’s part will be fairly small. In the Disney animated film, Maleficent threatens the young princess as a baby, who is then spirited off to live with a trio of good fairies, out of sight of the wicked fairy. In their care, she grows up thinking she is a peasant girl named Briar Rose before discovering her actual royal lineage.

Vivienne and her twin brother, Knox, who turned 4 in July, are the fifth and sixth of Jolie and Brad Pitt’s children, which also includes Maddox, 11, Pax, 8, Zahara, 7, Shiloh, 6. She is the first of the kids to tackle her parents’ profession.

The 3-D film will debut March 14, 2014, and is being directed by Robert Stromberg, the Oscar-winning production designer of Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. Other co-stars include Sharlto Copley (District 9), Sam Riley (On the Road), Imelda Staunton (Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix), Miranda Richardson (Sleepy Hollow), Juno Temple (Atonement) and Lesley Manville (Secrets & Lies).

 

[Majik1387]

Can she just replace Elle Fanning?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

People hate on Elle Fanning now? She is a good young actress.

 

[Majik1387]

I'm not a fan. Plus she's not pretty enough for Aurora.

 

[terry78]

I'm not a fan. Plus she's not pretty enough for Aurora.

YOU'RE not pretty enough for Aurora.

 

[Majik1387]

I'm too dashing to be a princess. I'm more Aladdin anyway.

But yeah, I don't know how I feel about this movie. I'm entirely intrigued, I love Maleficent, and I love Jolie, the rest of the cast is alright if not miscast in places, but I'm really not a fan of making Maleficent sympathetic. I'm just so ambivalent about this movie.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

my sole interest in this is movie lies in seeing Elle Fanning's performance. Honestly Angelina Jolie does nothing for me whatsoever.

 

[dark_b]

if Jolie would do something unique with the performance it would be interesting. but then she would not be cast. they expect her to act like Jolie does in other movies. we will see.

i dont understand why some are still complaining(not on SHH) that she doesnt have wings.

 

[Sawyer]

So, according to wikipedia, Paul Dini had a hand in writing this?....... If true,

 

[mclay18]

James Newton Howard will score Maleficent:

http://filmmusicreporter.com/2012/10/26/james-newton-howard-to-score-disneys-maleficent/

 

[Filmboy]

So someone over at Maleficent imdb board has provided a link to the script.

I was curious and go ahead to read the script.

And I really dislike the script after reading it.

Maleficent is supposed to be evil, the mistress of all evil. You don't mess with a classic beloved Disney Villainess and turn her into a nice,warm caring motherly figure.

This isn't the Sleeping Beauty tale that I grew up to love.

It's like making a "Lucifer" movie and instead of potraying the devil he was....you give him a backstory and turn him into a good guy.

This is how I felt after reading the "Maleficent" script. One of the worst horrible written script that I have ever read.

 

[Project862006]

^so they give title character some substance and depth like they did with evil queen in SWATH instead of doom and gloom evil and this is bad? not saying script cant still be awful but terrible reasons for your hatred

 

[Ultimatehero]

I haven't read the script but changing bad girl into "okay, now I get it" = WICKED. I don't get how that can make something bad. It would need to be more than that.

 

[The Guard]

I thought it was common knowledge that this film was taking the WICKED route.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I think on page it's okay, but get a good director and cast behind this and it will be solid. It's a lot better than MANY of the other scripts I've read. Hell, I'd go as far to say it kept my interest more than 'Snow White and the Huntsman' which I thought was entertaining - it wasn't the best, but if you like fairy tales you'd probably at least enjoy it. And it reads better than 'Jack the Giant Killer' (which from reviews seems to be a case of "it was an alright read, but an awesome film").

The problem with a script like this is it doesn't have that much prose to keep the reader intrigued. Thus, those used to reading the more verbose style scripts will get thrown off guard. It's more practical and detailed as to what is to be shot and how to shoot it. These kinds of scripts often tend to be up in the air as what the final film quality will be. But, as said - get a solid production, and it could kick off.

Although, there's bound to be backlash because while those who have studied fairy tales know and are used to them changing so much over the years; there's even a story of little red riding hood carrying around a shotgun and hunting three little pigs believe it or not lol. It's bound to unsettle those who just want Disney's Sleeping Beauty. I'm unsure why on the script it says that's what it's "based on" it when it seems to be more just based on the fairy tale itself since it's all kept generalized except for a couple of key visual marks...

For those wanting to know the controversial part:

Spoiler

Aura isn't wakened by Philip's kiss, she is wakened by Malificent's kiss to her forehead. Motherly love rather than romantic love.

Aura is actually a fairy, grows fairy wings, helps Malificient stop (unwittingly kill - we've got a "falling from high atop something" type ending here) her father, and she becomes a queen of the fairies rather than a queen of humanity.

Other changed parts for those looking for the old Disney film may be more 'okay' because they don't really change the story that much. But, those are the major ones to even the fairy tale itself. But, as said, these stories change all the time.

I also forgot to add:

Spoiler

In Wicked the witch seemed to be all good and Dorothy was made villainous. In this Aura is still seen as innocent and good. And Malificent still has an evil side to her - she's a woman spurned and she can come off as extremely dangerous and cruel at several times throughout the script. So she's not really that 'good' - only she's standing on the edge and can go either way kinds of characters. The script also pointedly shows that she isn't someone to trifle with.

 

[Filmboy]

I'm not trying to bash the script, but so far everybody who has read it, on Maleficent imdb board has expressed extreme negative reaction to it.

I seriously wonder how they're going to market this film.

Spoiler

The prince is basically much useless and forgetable. He is in only three brief short scenes, and he doesn't have much to do.

A lot of plot error in the script. Stephen is supposed to be half fairy/half human- the script never talk much about this.

How is Aurora supposed to be Queen Fairy and have fairy wings when her own father,Stephen doesn't even display such abilities?

The fact they turn Stephen into an evil person, the three fairies into mean,nasty, silly fairies really ruin it for me.

Maleficent was never truly evil throughout the script. When she was "evil" it was due to revenge or heart broken by Stephen.

I'm not lying. If you don't believe me, you can check out the script and read it yourself.

The whole script feels like it's being written by a sixth-grader.

They should have just change the name "Maleficent" into something else.

Because this is nothing like the Maleficent that everybody knew about

Spoiler

The script would have been decent if they explain how Maleficent becomes evil in the begining and she remains evil throughout the rest of the script.

But in this script, it's more like a Misunderstood motherly figure Maleficent from start to finish!!!

And she is still good and nice at the very last page of the script!!!

To sum it up, this script is as absurd and ridiculous as that scene where Maleficent is riding a white horse, rushing to the castle to prevent Aurora from pricking her finger on the spinning wheel.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Spoiler

That isn't a weakness, just that's people expecting Sleeping Beauty. It's also misguidance to the audience. "You think you know the story, but you don't." It was inventive. The script even led up to it and explained why such a thing as a true love's kiss from a guy who's just met the girl wouldn't make sense. If it was just random - okay - but it fit in.

Stephen is a halfling, it's mentioned throughout the script - gives him a tie to Malificent - and explains how Aura can become a full fairy in the end. It's also part of his motives, the fairies treated him badly thus he wants revenge and gives in to his human side because that's the only side that's been generous towards him. So it gives him motivation as well. The script doesn't call for much information beyond that.

It is most likely because it skips a generation. I see it like chromosomes, XX XY YY etc. It skipped a generation.

Once again, that isn't a script criticism - that's for you wanting Disney's Sleeping Beauty as did basically everyone on the IMDB boards.

For those wondering the fairies reminded me more of the good witch - stumbling blonde dufuses.

Again, this isn't a problem with the script - it was a different take. She was darker than the witch in WICKED. But, that's basically what they're aiming for... it's kind of like complaining that the wicked witch is good in that.

I'm unsure how exactly it feels like it was written by a "sixth-grader", just it wasn't a prose style script - and trust me, dude, I did this for a living reading scripts within the industry for a major company (one of the top five). So I know what a good, bad, prose, and detail script is. This is a detail script - which is meant more for filming than reading purposes. These are the scripts that are okay reads, but later turn into surprisingly better films. You have to read detail scripts with a different eye from prose scripts - which those who read leaked scripts are used to. The focus for the writers working this is just to create a template for filming, they don't pay attention to the reading of it and just the technical side of it which does make it a more awkward kind of script to read.

Spoiler

Again, that isn't a problem with the script - that's you wanting that just like people complaining about WICKED.

To make the ending thing make sense to people - she realizes in the end that she made a mistake and wants to right her wrongs.

I'm not saying you're wrong for not liking it. Just you and many others expected Disney's Sleeping Beauty. It's not. It's as different as WICKED and the little red riding hood story that has her as a girl with shotgun pumping action.

The only real criticisms are that a couple lines of dialog read as awkward (I'm putting this forward), but those lines may be changed on the day or read better than they are on the page. And most industry scripts have these slip-ups time and time again. Everything else is going to be up to public perception on whether or not they're okay with the WICKED route which seems to be the only real problem people are having with it. And seeing how WICKED has been received, I truly think this "need" for it to be straight-on with the original story is more of just a hard core fan thing.

 

[terry78]

It makes sense considering that her most well known trait has been that she was only spurned by not being invited by the king and queen to Aurora's birth, which seems a little disproportionate to the crime. Now you know why she's like that.