Post subject: Re: Maleficent Sequel Moving Forward.....
Posted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:57 am
disneyboy20022 wrote:
I saw the opening scene of Maleficent, with her as a little kind girl with wings, I looked at my girlfriend and said just shoot me.
Lol. Yea, Maleficent having been a good fairy when she was young would have been ok, but having her as a young child with REAL HORNS and the NAME MALEFICENT made no sense.
Location: Malta, Europe
Disney Duster wrote:
Don't forget the LIPSTICK!
Yea, Maleficent having been a good fairy when she was young would have been ok, but having her as a young child with REAL HORNS and the NAME MALEFICENT made no sense.
How did it not make sense? One of the main themes of the movie was not to judge a book by its cover and that appearances may be deceiving. Just because she looked different or had features that some associate with certain stereotypes, does not mean she was evil. For example, a lot of names that we still use today originally had negative meanings and many types of animals have horns.
What I mean is the original horns were part of Maleficent's headdress, not real horns apart of her head, and those horns and her name were originally intended to tell she was evil. Removing that reason for the horns and the name removes the reason and intellectual meaning. If the reason she had horns and the name Maleficent was because she was evil in the original, what is the intellectual, meaningful reason she was given horns and the name Maleficent in the live-action movie...?
If the reason she had horns and the name Maleficent was because she was evil in the original, what is the intellectual, meaningful reason she was given horns and the name Maleficent in the live-action movie...?
To subvert audience expectations and make a point about how appearances can be deceiving and how being different is vilified and demonized by society. It's similar to Beauty and the Beast in that respect. That someone who looked liked a monster wasn't one after all but the real monster was the good-looking, 'normal' guy.
You can believe that was the reason, but I'd say the real reason was because they had to make Maleficent have the horns and name because that's what the character has from the original. I never got at any time any feeling in Maleficent that the title character was vilified by anyone in the film because of those horns and name. It was only after she got raped and got super angry and pessimistic (?) that people were scared of her.
I have to agree that I feel it's ridiculous that a character named Maleficent would ever be good. Especially in fairy tale worlds where names have power. Besides the obvious similarity to Malevolent, I think her name may also have been based off of Malleus Maleficarum, which was a treatise on witches from the Renaissance.
I'd say the real reason was because they had to make Maleficent have the horns and name because that's what the character has from the original.
If that was the case, why would they give her real horns instead of the headpiece she had in the original? It'd be easier to make her more likable without the real horns. I believe that part was done on purpose for the reasons I mentioned.
JeanGreyForever wrote:
I have to agree that I feel it's ridiculous that a character named Maleficent would ever be good.
Why? Does a name now define people? It's not like she named herself. Besides, a lot of names that are now common like Mary, Emily, Molly, Claudia, Rebecca, Julia etc have had negative meanings and associations in the past and in various folktales and mythologies.
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:58 am
If that was the case, why would they give her real horns instead of the headpiece she had in the original? I'd be easier to make her more likable without the real horns. I believe that part was done on purpose for the reasons I mentioned.
Well not everyone is aware her horns were only apart of her headdress, actually. People on here have proven it. Personally I think they did it because they wanted to make her horns part of her because they thought it would make her look more like a fairy, despite fairies not being known for having horns. Yes, despite that. Basically I think they did it because they were stupid. I mean they gave Maleficent giant eagle wings and had mermaid fairies for crying out loud.
Besides, a lot of names that are now common like Mary, Emily, Molly, Claudia, Rebecca, Julia etc have had negative meanings and associations in the past and in various folktales and mythologies.
I would love expansion on this.
If its good, then for sure, why not go ahead with it. Nice to see female driven films moving forward .... but only if the quality is there. If this one descends into a CGI battle fest then no thank you. Would be cool to mix up some fairytale mythology into it, or something like that ?
Why? Does a name now defines people? It's not like she named herself. Besides, a lot of names that are now common like Mary, Emily, Molly, Claudia, Rebecca, Julia etc have had negative meanings and associations in the past and in various folktales and mythologies.
Once more, this is a fairy tale world. In movies and books in particular, characters are given names that have some sort of symbolic meaning and in fairy tales this was even moreso considering the powers of name (look at Rumpelstiltskin). And while Maleficent is a popular character, have you heard of anyone in today's day and age who has named their daughter, or son, Maleficent? It's not a name people want to have because it's clearly an evil name. Movies and books typically always name their villains with some very obvious evil sounding names. Cruella is another obvious one and I think people would be as up in arms about a Cruella film where we find out that a woman literally named after being cruel and the devil is in fact a good woman who only ever wanted to help puppies and was framed by the money-grabbing Roger and Anita. Yet, they went that route with Maleficent and it clearly left audiences divided.
Really? I looked up some of those names and their meanings like Mary, Rebecca, and Julia, and I don't see any negative meanings. Mary especially shouldn't have a negative association considering who the most famous Mary is in all the world. The closest I can think is that people might think of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca or the infamous Julia from Ancient Rome, but I don't think you are referring to them and neither would be as off-putting as say naming your child Damien or Lucifer.
Once more, this is a fairy tale world.
But it's not a traditional fairy tale world. It's a modern, revisionist take on the fairy tale so a character with an evil-sounding name not being evil makes sense and falls in line with the filmmakers' approach and intent whether we like that or not.
And while Maleficent is a popular character, have you heard of anyone in today's day and age who has named their daughter, or son, Maleficent?
That's because it's a made-up name created specifically for the villain in a Disney film. People are familiar with it because of its popularity. But they have no problem naming their children Darcy (=the dark one) or Lola (=sorrowful) or Persephone (=bringing death) etc. because unlike the name Maleficent people are unaware of their initial meanings.
Mary especially shouldn't have a negative association considering who the most famous Mary is in all the world.
One of the meanings of Mary in Hebrew is bitter. Rebecca means trap, Emily means rival, Claudia means lame. There's lots of names whose original meanings were something negative that people don't know about (or don't care because the association is no longer culturally relevant).
Cruella is another obvious one and I think people would be as up in arms about a Cruella film where we find out that a woman literally named after being cruel and the devil is in fact a good woman who only ever wanted to help puppies and was framed by the money-grabbing Roger and Anita. Yet, they went that route with Maleficent and it clearly left audiences divided.
I get that people may not like turning a popular villain into the hero but that wasn't the argument here. The argument was that a character that has a name with an "evil" or otherwise negative meaning can't be a good person which I find preposterous.
You're right. As someone who didn't care for Maleficent, I was ignoring this part and looking more at the original Sleeping Beauty world created by Walt Disney.
As you pointed out, names like Darcy, Lola, Mary, Rebecca, Emily, Claudia and Persephone (does anyone really name their child Persephone though?) don't have the stigma that a name like Maleficent has. These names are now part of our cultural consciousness and have grown past what their original meanings may have been. However, Maleficent is way too similar to a word that is still well known today which is "malevolent." You can't look at Maleficent and not think of that other word which has a negative connotation. This is something those other names do not have. Cruella is the other example because you can't have Cruella without the word "cruel." A name like Maleficent wouldn't work except as you pointed out, in a modern day fairy tale revisionist film, which seemingly was always meant to invert the "villainous" characters like Maleficent and Diablo/Diaval (another example of an evil name) to become good while good characters like the King and the Fairies would become the characters with malicious intent. Personally, I don't buy it, but I never liked the approach to the movie anyway. At least Wicked does have Elphaba turn evil (the book moreso than the musical) unlike what Maleficent does here.
But you're right that this becomes more of a discussion of the film than the character's name. Personally however, I would judge someone I met in real life named Maleficent, Diablo, Cruella, Lucifer, Gingema, Voldemort, etc. If they have a name like that, then something is seriously off.
Someone good having an evil name is not the preposterous part. Someone having a name that means evil in a world where names still have that evil cannotation and where names mean what a person is and yet them being good is what doesn't make sense.
And you ignored how Maleficent isn't seen as evil until how she acts in the film after her rape.
At least Wicked does have Elphaba turn evil (the book moreso than the musical) unlike what Maleficent does here.
I never thought Elphaba turned evil!
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:24 pm
She sort of embraces being "wicked" between Acts 1 and 2 in Wicked but she quickly turns good again. The book is far darker though from what I remember.
Jules wrote:
I hated the intro with her as a child, too, but especially the lipstick. Somehow that seemed especially ridiculous to me. I wish they'd just began with her as a teen/young adult.
I agree, it's absurd.
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:13 am
I've read the book and seen the musical like you have, and I would say in the musical she decides a lot of the good she tries doesn't work so she will just let people call her wicked and do as she sees fit no matter what people call her. She frees animals and goes against the tyranny of the wizard, then says, "No good deed will I do again" only to go away forever in the end. I would say she never turned evil even in "No Good Deed", I think she's just lamenting there. As for the book, she kills someone, but only because she thinks they are evil, and towards the end she vows to live on her own and not do any bad. I don't remember what she was going to do with Dorothy, but it seemed she only wanted to talk with her, maybe punish her, or get the shoes back, but not kill her.
Isn't there a time jump between Acts 1 and 2 of the musical and during that timeframe, isn't it implied that Elphaba basically does embrace being wicked then, not just as an image?
I don't really remember much of the book to be honest except that it was darker so I assumed that she must have been actually evil in there for a time, especially since she actually does die in the book with no happy ending with Fiyero. Although the book is well written and I loved how deeply it got into Oz lore, I think I much prefer the musical's happy ending.
To tie this in with Maleficent, I wonder if they'll try and do something similar by having most of the world still believe she's really evil as she steps back out of the limelight to let Aurora rule the human and fairy worlds.
I don't think she turns wicked at the end of Act 2 but rather decides she won't be on the wizard's side and will let people see her as evil.
I prefer the book in almost all ways except I like Elphaba and Glinda's relationship in the musical more.
Maybe your idea for Maleficent will happen.
Joachim Rønning In Talks To Direct Disney's 'Maleficent 2'
http://deadline.com/2017/10/maleficent- ... 202177681/
Users browsing this forum: blackcauldron85, lord-of-sith, MSN [Bot] and 86 guests