movies/tv Old Maleficent vs new Maleficent

[OmegaPony 18]

Made for my brother, who prefers old over new. My first topic. I myself like the old.  

 

for example... the original said die which takes guts for a disney movie, also SHE TURNED INTO A DRAGON!!!

 

But in the new maleficent she does neither of these things!

 

 

old 7

new 2

Edited January 5, 2015 by OmegaPony

[GreyScholar 1,584]

What my brother is trying to offer is a poll of sorts, though I believe he is not a high enough member yet to make such.

 

You see I showed my brother how scary and evil the original Maleficent is from Sleeping Beauty compared to the new movie with Angelina Jolie. Of how they took away the 'bite' the villain had, with her willingness to curse the baby with death, her tearing down the prince by saying she would keep him locked up for a hundred years until he is an old man and then release him to awaken his fair princess, and her awesome transformation into a dragon.

 

Of how Disney instead decided to turn the character into an unfortunately name 'pure-hearted and innocent' young fey harmed by a man, becoming a glorified nanny and trickster.

Edited January 5, 2015 by EquestrianScholar

[Guest]

@@OmegaPony, as your thread is not related to MLP or its fandom in general, I have moved the thread from the 'Sugarcube Corner' section of the FiM boards to 'Media Discussion' in the Everfree Forest boards (where general movie discussion is better suited). Please keep in mind to consider the appropriate location for a thread before posting. If you require any further assistance with anything at all, please PM me or another member of staff. Oh, and welcome!

 

I have yet to see the new Maleficent, mostly because I'm rather partial to the animated version. The Maleficent from the 1959 animated classic 'Sleeping Beauty' was just wicked, in all senses of the word.

[Nuke87654 1,849]

What my brother is trying to offer is a poll of sorts, though I believe he is not a high enough member yet to make such.

 

You see I showed my brother how scary and evil the original Maleficent is from Sleeping Beauty compared to the new movie with Angelina Jolie. Of how they took away the 'bite' the villain had, with her willingness to curse the baby with death, her tearing down the prince by saying she would keep him locked up for a hundred years until he is an old man and then release him to awaken his fair princess, and her awesome transformation into a dragon.

 

Of how Disney instead decided to turn the character into an unfortunately name 'pure-hearted and innocent' young fey harmed by a man, becoming a glorified nanny and trickster.

 

Pretty much, they took who pretty much was the original archetype of evil sorceress and made her into...some fairy who was mistreated by the bad humans.

[Tao 7,949]

Well i like both of the Maleficent's movies and how each

can show a different side to a cannon in good or evil!

 

Cartoon Maleficent was evil/twisted/driven/genius who

could still turn into a dragon and nearly killed the prince

and a example of a strong woman who know what she wanted!

 

Live Action Maleficent had depth/faults/evolving/love, which

shows they someone can change and evolve from one thing to

the other and she was also a warrior in her own right in protecting

Fey and later her human.

 

Both have something offer if you just think on it.

[VitalSpark 1,830]

A lot of the stuff you complain about them cutting out is stuff that Disney added for their earlier film, and was not part of the original source material (the Charles Perrault book). For example, all the dragon stuff.

 

(Frankly I thought the dragon stuff was a bit silly anyway - if she could turn into a dragon, then what was she wasting her time cursing the princess to prick her finger on a spinning wheel for?!)

 

Maleficent is to Sleeping Beauty what Wicked was to The Wizard of Oz. The film was specifically written as a film to make the main character more relatable, and explore her back story. Given that aim, I think it's unfair to criticise the film for not portraying her as purely evil.

 

It is like criticising Star Wars by saying you think it should have been a slapstick comedy, set in a New York fast food franchise. Yes, maybe that would be a great idea for a film. But it's a different film. If you like fast-food-based slapstick and nothing else, don't take it out on Star Wars. It's not Star Wars' fault.

 

Maleficent was never supposed to be a remake of Sleeping Beauty. It's a different film. It's not a sequel; it's not a prequel; it's a separate narrative; a different take on the same source material.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Vital Spark

[Fractured 2,684]

They messed up when they tried to imply this had anything to do with Sleeping Beauty. Making Maleficent a tragic figure(knowing the character she is) makes about as much sense as  an origin story placing Peter Parker as a football player. I don't get it; why make a movie and character, only later to make another movie and character that completely contradicts it?

[Megas 27,764]

Old. With the new it felt like they were trying to make the character have more depth, only to strip pretty much everything that made the character so great in the first place

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Can't I like both?

 

The original Maleficent was one of the most iconic animated villains of all time. She had everything, grace, power, fury, intelligence, etc.

 

The new Maleficent represents something too though; redemption. The new reinterpretation of the character shows that the power of love can lessen the sting of betrayal and dull the fires of hatred.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Steel Accord

[EquestriaGuy 1,074]

Maleficent was better before the wings, but Disney executive meddling totally ruined the character. 

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,162]

I like both portrayals of the character. I appreciate them adding more depth to the recent one, but if I had to choose I'd go with the old one. As villains come you don't get much more evil than Maleficent.

[Castle Bleck 19,379]

I like both portrayals of the character. I appreciate them adding more depth to the recent one, but if I had to choose I'd go with the old one. As villains come you don't get much more evil than Maleficent.

 

I also prefer Eleanor Audley's, but Angelina Jolie's was interesting to watch as well.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,162]

I also prefer Eleanor Audley's, but Angelina Jolie's was interesting to watch as well.

 

Not to mention that when it comes to the evil laugh, I'm not sure anyone did it better than Eleanor.

 

[Castle Bleck 19,379]

Not to mention that when it comes to the evil laugh, I'm not sure anyone did it better than Eleanor.

 

 

Further case in point:

 

 

Yes, that's E.A.

[Freewave 1,145]

A lot of the stuff you complain about them cutting out is stuff that Disney added for their earlier film, and was not part of the original source material (the Charles Perrault book). For example, all the dragon stuff.

 

(Frankly I thought the dragon stuff was a bit silly anyway - if she could turn into a dragon, then what was she wasting her time cursing the princess to prick her finger on a spinning wheel for?!)

 

Maleficent is to Sleeping Beauty what Wicked was to The Wizard of Oz. The film was specifically written as a film to make the main character more relatable, and explore her back story. Given that aim, I think it's unfair to criticise the film for not portraying her as purely evil.

 

It is like criticising Star Wars by saying you think it should have been a slapstick comedy, set in a New York fast food franchise. Yes, maybe that would be a great idea for a film. But it's a different film. If you like fast-food-based slapstick and nothing else, don't take it out on Star Wars. It's not Star Wars' fault.

 

Maleficent was never supposed to be a remake of Sleeping Beauty. It's a different film. It's not a sequel; it's not a prequel; it's a separate narrative; a different take on the same source material.

Honestly for that same comparison, the prequels of Star Wars are to the Original Star Wars Trilogy then. Part of the point of the prequels is to paint Anakin's past before becoming Darth Vader.  That's partially why they don't work as they don't necessarily paint him as that sympathetic and show he was easily manipulated in the third. Darth Vader may have been a better villain w/o 3 movies of unneeded backstory (or not).

[Maze 100]

Well, the new Maleficent is very interesting because we get to see her actual backstory, where she grew up, how she became evil and why, etc... With that said, I liked young Maleficent A LOT.. I liked young Maleficent better than the grown up one in the movie, to be honest. It was magical and her eyes and wings were to die for.

 

The movie was cute in it's own way, Maleficent got this motherly figure for Aurora which was an adorable concept to me.

The ending however, was a little "meh", since everything went by so quick and she DIDN'T EVEN TURN INTO A DRAGON. Her CROW did! That wasn't cool. Right, we got our dragon I guess but it wasn't actually Maleficent doing it. The entire movie and ending made me think "We've been fooled this entire time" by the original Sleeping Beauty.

I loved the new Maleficent in a "feely" way, which is totally worth something.

 

Yet, I still prefer the old one... Since she's what we knew from the beginning and since she's so darn kickass and pure evil without further ado.

Edited January 6, 2015 by rosenflickan

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

Old one definitely. I miss seeing her. They've destroyed a legendary Disney icon.