# Maleficent



## Mindfire (Nov 13, 2013)

So there's this: 





It _looks_ pretty good. And then I read the plot synopsis...



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



UGH. Why? Why do they have to ruin a perfectly awesome villain by trying to make her "sympathetic" and "misunderstood"? The whole point of Maleficent is that she's _not_ sympathetic. She curses Princess Aurora out of spite. Her final form is a black dragon. She invokes the _powers of hell_ when battling Prince Phillip. She styles herself the *Mistress of All Evil*! Why on earth would you water down the character by giving her a backstory? It's like finding out Sauron decided to conquer Middle Earth because the elves used to make fun of him millennia ago. (This is, incidentally, the reason I dislike _Wicked_. _Oz the Great and Powerful_ gets a pass because one of the witches was evil from the beginning.) Just let Maleficent be evil and awesome, dangit! And judging by the synopsis's last sentence, it sounds like they're going to change the story's ending, and I really hope they don't.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 13, 2013)

But, sucker that I am, I'll watch the movie anyway in the hopes of seeing the live action version of this scene:


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 13, 2013)

If Maleficent is the main character, it is appears, then it would be a bit lame if they didn't do something to make her more complex, and to make her into a bit of a tragic figure. Whether the story will work in this particular case remains to be seen.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 13, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> If Maleficent is the main character, it is appears, then it would be a bit lame if they didn't do something to make her more complex, and to make her into a bit of a tragic figure.



I suppose. But where a lot of these stories take a wrong turn is that they make the tragedy into an _excuse_ for the villains behavior. That's what I don't like. But tragic backstories can be effective. The Joker's backstory is fairly tragic (depending on which version you believe), but no one would even dream of making _excuses_ for what he does.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 13, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Why on earth would you water down the character by giving her a backstory? It's like finding out Sauron decided to conquer Middle Earth because the elves used to make fun of him millennia ago.



Actually, Sauron was once the setting's equivalent of an angel, but became a tyrant out of a desire to bring order. (It's a recurring thing in Tolkien for villains to start out with good intentions, but commit so many atrocities that they forget their original goals.)

On-topic, I was burned on _Snow White and the Huntsman_, so I'll wait for the reviews.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 13, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I suppose. But where a lot of these stories take a wrong turn is that they make the tragedy into an _excuse_ for the villains behavior. That's what I don't like. But tragic backstories can be effective. The Joker's backstory is fairly tragic (depending on which version you believe), but no one would even dream of making _excuses_ for what he does.



I think making tragedy an excuse is a problem. There is always an element of choice needed, in my view. If the tragedy made the villainy unavoidable, then the story loses its power. If the tragedy led an otherwise good person to choose a path of villainy, then any redemption is more powerful and I'll be more invested in the story.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 13, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Actually, Sauron was once the setting's equivalent of an angel, but became a tyrant out of a desire to bring order. (It's a recurring thing in Tolkien for villains to start out with good intentions, but commit so many atrocities that they forget their original goals.)



I know, I just needed to make up an example that would sound as ridiculous as possible.


----------



## Addison (Nov 13, 2013)

I saw the trailer and I gotta say, when Aurora was talking to Maleficent in the forest, I KNEW that Maleficent was going to say "Then you will be afraid". 

I admit that they foreshadow a disappointing turn in the Maleficent character. But it does remind me of Cora from Once Upon a Time. Evil isn't born, it's created. But clearly they didn't think very much into Maleficent's past and present motive or even consider the fact that she is the Mistress of all evil of has all the powers of hell. 

And I didn't see Flora, Fauna or Merriweather. They were my favorite characters in the original Disney movie. I always laugh at their dress duel.


----------



## Ireth (Nov 13, 2013)

...That plot doesn't make sense. It completely contradicts the events of Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent couldn't possibly have been watching over Aurora for her whole life, because she couldn't FIND her for all that time. Anyone remember the line, "It's incredible! Sixteen years, and not a trace of her!" ?

Now, granted, I am a fan of _Wicked_ (moreso the musical than the book, which was too gore- and sex-heavy for my taste), but this just seems like a knockoff. Let evil be evil for once!


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 13, 2013)

Ireth said:


> ...That plot doesn't make sense. It completely contradicts the events of Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent couldn't possibly have been watching over Aurora for her whole life, because she couldn't FIND her for all that time. Anyone remember the line, "It's incredible! Sixteen years, and not a trace of her!" ?



Oh yeah! That did happen, didn't it?


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 13, 2013)

Sleeping Beauty is a very old story that has undergone numerous variations over the last few hundred years. The Disney version was one variation. Now they're varying their variation


----------



## Ireth (Nov 13, 2013)

I just don't understand why Maleficent would watch over Aurora in the first place, especially for so long. The curse says she'll prick her finger on a spindle before sunset on her 16th birthday, but what's stopping Maleficent from leading her to do so years before the deadline? If they're going to nullify the entire POINT of Maleficent's being in the original Disney tale, why not just change the names and make it an original story? At least Wicked played its connection to The Wizard of Oz (mostly) straight.


----------



## Addison (Nov 13, 2013)

The same things has been done with Snow White. There's the disney version, "Mirror Mirror", and "Snow White and the Huntsman".
But Cinderella has been  redone almost to death. It also has two sequels. There's new versions with Hillary Duff, Selena Gomez, even Jennifer Lopez in "Maid in Manhattan". The only revision of Cinderella I enjoyed was live action "Ever After". 

Luckily they haven't made any remakes of Beauty and The Beast, I grew up on the movie. I'm not counting the TV series as that's more a merging of 10% Beauty and the Beast and 90% Buffy. 


Sidney Prescott said the rule best in in Scream 4, "First rule of remakes Jill, don't f#$& with the original."


----------

