MovieChat Forums > Love Never Dies (2012) Discussion > I appreciate the clean-up but it still d...

I appreciate the clean-up but it still doesn't work

posted 12 years ago by wolfoutlaw
10 replies | jump to latest

First a sidenote:
This is not a sequel to the 2004 movie because that movie is Joel Schumacher's interpretation and has a drastically changed storyline and emotional center, seeing to ALW's stage play whilst LND is a sequel to that stage play as in ALW's own original version.

So if you'd like to downright argue anything about this post - and by all means feel free to - but I'd like you to note there's no use bringing up any arguments using that film version. Because, as said, LND is not a sequel to that film.

OK, so, let's get to what I actually wanted to comment on...I see they did a lot of cleaning up seeing to the original London production but no surprise there that the core story is exactly the same utter nonesense bad fanfic-type, and logic failure, that disgraces the original PotO.

To explain that negative opinion shortly;

1. LND completely destroyes PotO's extremely important moral which is that to love is to let go. Now ALW's PotO has no moral whatsoever, on the contrary it teaches horrible things; because according to LND you can do whatever the hell you want to your loved ones because love never dies. "Love never dies" isn't even a moral in itself, it's just a philosphy.

And already simply the fact that originally the Phantom learned that to love is to let go, but now apparently he didn't learn it after all even though he literally did that teeen looong yeeears ago.

2. The characterisations on EVERY character is unrealistic. And way too drastic to be nice anyway. Making the plot horribly contrived and illogic, both as a sequel and a stand-alone story. And this results in an addition to the number one reason why this is a disgrace of the original characters and story.

But what I appreciate about the clean-up is that the Phantom got some real darkness back. In the original London production he got dark only when met Raoul and another time when his kid was in danger - and that's all. In the Australian production he actually threatened to kill/hurt/abduct a 10-year old little boy. (Sidenote; at that point he did not know that the said boy is his own son but thought him to be Raoul and Christine's.)
But that scene was genuinely creepy as hell, he was genuinely heartless, and as usual he defended his attitude and intentions with his face looking monstrous.

BUT, as generally fine and appreciatable as I find that addition/change - it falls flat with the fact that he resorted into that just because he wanted to hear Christine sing. That doesn't fit when originally he threatened and killed in order to get Christine for himself because he was lonely and loved her obsessively, and then eventually learned what love means...and never before threatened little children anyway...So I think the motivation for this darker-than-ever threat is just way too weak and in that sense somewhat unrealistic still. Not to mention it makes LND's own ending even more utter nonesense. I didn't think it would be possible but hey, they managed to!

I mean, I know the title is "love never dies" but COME ON! What kind of a loving parent-!
*SIGH* If someone who supposedly loved me, was willing and able to blackmail me with the life of MY child, (or any child's but it being mine makes it a million-fold more significant), especially for such a stupid reason as to hear me sing...I would never in a million years enter into a relationship with that someone, no matter how much I loved him/her. Because I'd love my child much much more.
But Christine swears her love to the Phantom at the end and had she not gotten accidentally killed, she apparently would've stayed with the Phantom.

So, I have mixed feelings about that change/addition. On one hand it's a nice attempt to make the Phantom darker as he should be, but I think it crossed the line of making sense seeing to the entity. I mean, by logic, after the end of PotO, the Phantom shouldn't be that cruel to Christine as to blackmail her with her own child's life (just to hear her sing) - and Christine shouldn't have been all THAT in love with the Phantom after being blackmailed with her little boy's life...This change makes her as mental as Meg is in that gawdawful sequel.

Kudos for trying though...But then again, they still are as far as they ever were from realizing that the core story and characterisations is LND's crucial flaw and as long as those aren't entirely changed - LND will never work or be worthy of the original PotO.

I've seen the "fixed" Australian production, I watched it on YouTube.

I (still)...

...Love the song "Beauty Underneath"
But I'd gladly give its existence up if LND could be unamde into never-was.
...Think some of the other songs too have their moments, like a few lines that are great. And some songs have beautiful melodies.
...Think that generally the other songs are just forgettable...Although could be even more so...because good gawd most of the lyrics!! x(
- "I want the truth right now, if so!" ...Who the *beep* speaks like that anyway? Certainly not the Phantom. Shouldn't. Aggh.
...But then, the way he talked Meg out of committing suicide was very nice...up until he turned into a moron and brought up his adoration of Christine.
...Hate "Beneath A Moonless Sky"'s point and lyrics. But I like its melody.

X So, I've very mixed feelings for the songs/music aspect, but mostly I dislike it. Were the song writers stoned while writing? I mean, how can anyone write less-than-avarage or downright crap, but occational moments of great lyrics and one entirely great song? As in they were obviously skilled enough to write good/great songs, so why are most of the songs not? I know it's an opinion matter, but as far as I'm aware most fans have one or two favourites and feel that the rest of the songs aren't much - for a (PotO) musical anyway.

*

...Love Ramin Karimloo as the Phantom even more after enduring Ben Lewis' performance.

X Lewis isn't necessarely a bad singer/actor, he's singing voice just isn't good enough for my taste, and his acting isn't passionate enough nor convincing. Especially at the moment when Christine realizes Gustave is gone and the Phantom gets all angry...Ben Lewis comes off just upset or so. If I was a suspect on his Phantom's list, I'd have laughed at his face and then hidden behind something. Whereas Ramin managed to come off totally pissed off, had I been a suspect on his Phantom's list and not able to prove myself innocent, I'd run the hell away - fast, and with my hand on the level of my eyes.

*

...Hate the plot. It needs to be throroughly re-written, no other way could the show be saved.
And couldn't they at least have TRIED to make some sense within this plot if they HAD to write this crap?
- If Christine was going to go back to the Phantom forever and ever, why the hell didn't she leave Raoul first? Why on earth would she want to cheat on him instead?
- How the bloody hell did she ever find the Phantom?
- How could she know which one is Gustave's father? I don't think there was any way to make sure at that era. Unless they had sexless wedding night and numerous sexless weeks more but if so they should've SAID SO to make sense of it. The how-do-you-know beomes important as they make a huge deal about the kid and he's a crucial plot device.
- Why on earth was Meg obsessing about the Phantom's love? They never even spoke to each other in the original musical.
- I know that the Phantom might long to have a beautiful child with Christine, but come on - his conclusions for Gustave are RIDICULOUSLY drawn.

X The concept of disrespecting and not caring for the original story which one's writing a sequel to, can somehow be comprehended...But it's like the writers didn't care even about the new story they were writing, didn't care enough to have it make sense as a stand-alone. And these are supposed to be experienced, professional writers??!! WTF!?

*

...Hate the characterisations. Even though I have to admit they did make a nice effort to better some of them seeing to the original London version.

X But the thing is the effort was way too little and in the Phantom's case horribly failed, as pointed out earlier. But I'm glad Meg was more herself with her feelings about Christine, and didn't have gothic looks. And I'm glad Mme. Giry isn't so much a witch anymore. But I think the Australian version's actor was...well, I'm sorry but she just seemed to be saying the lines, not really acting much.

*

...The ending with the dying Christine revealing to Gustave that his real father is the Phantom, asking the Phantom to kiss her one last time and dying during that kiss, the Phantom holding her crying, Gustave coming to their side to hold/lay his head on his dead mother's hand, and the Phantom gently stroking the boy's hair didn't move me the least bit. None of it. Not even though I'm an E/C shipper for life and eternity. That ending as an entity as in including how it came about, is just too contrived in every which way and the entire plot being so too, helped a lot in making the ending totally lacking emotional effect. Plus, I think that stuff was a bit over-dramatic, perhaps. Besides, because I don't hate Raoul, it annoys me that this Australian version had him almost emotionless at his wife's death. That ending screams a bad Raoul-hater fanfic.

*

...But the very last moment of the show did manage to genuinely move me, a little.
Gustave gets up from his dead mother's side, walks to the devistated Phantom, who at noticing this sings a bit of "Love Never Dies" to the boy, they embrace for a long moment, then the boy takes off the Phantom's mask and gently runs his little hand over the deformed side of his face with no fear or disgust.
Even though it doesn't make sense that at a moment like that the boy didn't hold on to the man who had raised him as his own for 10 years, but went to the man whom he'd met two days ago and only a few minutes ago learned to be his real father - which hadn't even made him happy but protest by running away instead. And even though Gustave's conception happened by a disgraceful and illogic plot twist seeing to the original end AND the E/C relationship. (I'd think E & C wouldn't screw each others' brains out as the first thing at their reunion but would talk about their relationship, past and future. LND's vision of that night is entirely upside down and lacking sense anyway.)

But the thing about this show's last moment is, I love the Phantom - and I think it's lovely that he didn't lose everything again, but had a child to love and eventually be loved by. So lovely that the mockery, and contrived and illogic writing behind it doesn't take away all good emotional effect.
It was a momentary, warm I'm-so-happy-for-you feeling. (Although I doubt the Phantom would succeed very well as a single father.)
And I'd also like to think that Gustave didn't forget about Raoul but stayed in his life too. Poor Raoul, he shouldn't lose everything any more than the Phantom.

SO...yeah.
I think this results in a few minor, relative positives and a more numerous huge minuses.

LND

PS.
If anyone has or knows of a live-performance recorded of "Beauty Underneath" that has Ramin Karimloo with someone else than Harry Polden...Please let me know.

I don't care for Ben Lewis' singing voice and acting at all, but I LOVE Ramin's voice and acting. I love Harry Polden's singing voice but the problem is the kid sounds creepily over-exited in that song. I think Ramin Karimlloo and the kid from the Australian version with the singing voice of Polden, would've been a nice combination. :D

[–] Chason_S 11 years ago

Just read all (!) of your post. I think you like Love Never Dies more than you think you do. It's not a "based on a true story"... it's a fantasy, and it's "over-the-top" because it has to be. I think you are taking it all too literal. I've watched it 4 or 5 times, and me and the people I watch it with always love it, and get all teary-eyed at the end. The music is gorgeous and the sets, and the costumes... and the romance. It's just a story... not meant to be taken so serious. Opera's are like that. I enjoyed your post, though... even if I disagree with much of it.

[–] wolfoutlaw 11 years ago

"I think you like Love Never Dies more than you think you do."

What makes you think that? I don't even see logic in that statement in itself. I mean, how would a person not know exactly how much one likes or dislikes something? It's one's own personal emotion, a feeling, not an outside mystery one could find more about in a deeper look. Surely an emotion can grow in time, but as for how much it currently is one most certainly has to know. So, no, I do not like LND any more than I say I do.

So what if it's not based on a true story? It's officially a canon sequel to another story, therefore it expects to be taken seriously as a sequel to that story. As for general matters, nothing's "just a story" because fiction - even fantasy fiction - mirrors real life. And therefore should be taken somewhat seriously. It's not like I was taking this seriously beyond reason, I wasn't saying this specific story really happened or anything like that.

And, nothing has to be over-the-top. Sometimes it can work, but nothing has to be so. They could've easily written an ending that's not over-dramatic. Feel free to explain to me why you think it would've been impossible?

[–] Chason_S 11 years ago

I mean, how would a person not know exactly how much one likes or dislikes something?

I just meant that you sure spent a lot of time talking about the things you did like.

They could've easily written an ending that's not over-dramatic.

They could have - but it wouldn't have had the power that it has now. Phantom is pretty over-the-top, too. Both Phantom and Love are meant to be like dreams, where emotions and happenings are more extreme and fantastic than they would be in real life.

Don't you think?

[–] wolfoutlaw 11 years ago

"I just meant that you sure spent a lot of time talking about the things you did like."

Did not. Look again. Most of it is mixed with the dislikes. And more importantly, the content of the text matters more than the amount of it; at the parts where I didn't downright critisize but more talked about things I liked, it was in relativeness to the negative aspects.

I simply wanted to be constructive and fair, not a whiny hater who only focuses on the negatives.

"They could have - but it wouldn't have had the power that it has now. Phantom is pretty over-the-top, too. Both Phantom and Love are meant to be like dreams, where emotions and happenings are more extreme and fantastic than they would be in real life.

Don't you think?"

No, I really don't think so.
First of all, we can't know what power a not-over-the-top ending would've had. In all likelyhood much more power because it would've been more genuine, more believable and more relatable.
And second of all, at least in POTO's ending the possibly over-dranatic events have a valid base, the characters' emotions and choices are believable, especially seeing to their earlier choices and motives. In LND it's all ridiculously illogic, unrealistic and melodramatic.

[–] StrongRex 9 years ago

I definitely agree that Love Never Dies is beyond horrible, and should never have existed at all. But at least it is a sequel that people can ignore.

Maleficent (2014) is worse. I don't know if you've seen Sleeping Beauty, but Maleficent is probably Disney's most iconic villain. They MESSED HER UP by making her a good guy!

The goal of Maleficent was to make her the hero of the story. To do that, the writers had to basically do to Maleficent and the other characters the Love Never Dies Treatment. King Stefan is no longer a devoted ruler and loving father but a tyrant who couldn't care less about his daughter (much less declare in her name that she fills his life with sunshine), the heroic three fairies are now Jar Jar Binks-esq ninnies. Prince Phillip is still the love-lorn prince but without his courage being displayed. And Maleficent is no longer the self-proclaimed Mistress of All Evil but a wronged woman who never cursed an infant to death and who worked tirelessly to keep the child safe.

Maleficent completely rewrites the story it's based on and changes the characters beyond recognition. There's literally no point to it.

[–] wolfoutlaw 9 years ago

"Maleficent completely rewrites the story it's based on and changes the characters beyond recognition. There's literally no point to it."

Of cours ethere is a point to it. Do rememeber that unlike Love Never Dies, Maleficent (2014) is a remake, not a sequel. It's not even a book-to-film adaptation or anything like that. The whole point of a remake is to be a re-imaginening, a re-vision, to change things in order to offer a fresh, new take on a story in someone else's vision or the original creator's own, new vision.
So in my opinion that Maleficent movie is one of the good remakes because of how totally it changed things instead of being just an utter copy of the original, or just a live-action version of an animated movie that doesn't need a live-action version.
Though I do think even that kind of remakes can be terrible, such as the "A Nightmare on Elm Street" remake which in my opinion is distasteful with how it stripped Freddy's character off of everything else and focused on his pedophilic aspect while the original was decent enough to keep it as an undertone while focusing on the other layers of the character. Also, that remake's plot isn't very creative and it was too much of a scene-to-scene copy trying to ride on the wings of the most iconic moments from the original movie.
But Maleficent works fine as a stand-alone movie and I appreciate its efforts to be creative and complex.

Still I do understand and see why fans of Maleficent's character would be upset and angry, but it should be relatively easy for you to get over it if you acknowledge that the live-action movie indeed is just a remake, a new version. A remake - especially if created by people unrelated to the original - need not ruin the original at all - or at least nowhere near as much & the same way as a CANON SEQUEL such as Love Never Dies do. A remake can be more easily ignored while it doesn't touch the original story and characters as deeply and utterly as a (canon) sequel does.

So, I must disagree and say that in my opinion Maleficent is not worse than Love Never Dies but quite the contrary. As it doesn't even fall into the same category what with it being a remake and not a sequel.

[–] StrongRex 9 years ago

So in my opinion that Maleficent movie is one of the good remakes because of how totally it changed things instead of being just an utter copy of the original, or just a live-action version of an animated movie that doesn't need a live-action version.

I REALLY have to disagree with you here.

I don't find it good in the slightest. Make the story completely original, not based on anything. What do you have? You have a one dimensional villain who is evil just because, you have a princess who is cute and kind but that's it, a love interest for the princess who doesn't do anything, you have the three fairies who do nothing but bicker and act incompetent, you have the protagonist who does bad things because of (you guessed it) a man broke her heart, etc.

You have boring, underdeveloped characters and a plot that's been recycled many times over.

The original had some great characters. Sure, you had the beautiful princess, the handsome and brave prince, and a love at first sight subplot. However, you also had three female protagonist who rescue men, fight dragons and save women. You also had a female antagonist whose power surpassed all.

She also reigned in chaos. She cursed infants to die, kidnapped a prince to keep the curse in place, and even psychologically tortured her captive by letting him know what one day, after a life time in her dungeon, he will be released and only released because the woman that he loves is gone forever. This film takes these great characters and destroys them.

One of the dumbest things Disney did in this movie was make Aurora the narrator ("I was the one they called Sleeping Beauty"). Why isn't Maleficent the narrator? This movie was signed, sealed and delivered as Sleeping Beauty form Maleficent's perspective. But she isn't even the narrator.

Aurora would have almost zero first hand knowledge of the events of this movie. For a vast majority of the movie, she's either not born, a young child, or asleep. She isn't telling the "true" story of what happened to Maleficent. She's telling the story someone told her about Maleficent and labeling it as the truth.

Linda Woolverton, the writer of Maleficent, seems to hate the original Disney's Sleeping Beauty with a passion and wanted to stick it to Disney for some reason. That's how the script came across. As said before, she took great characters, switched the hats of who's good and who's bad, and did it in such a way that was really degrading and insulting. Doug Walker sums it up best in his Disneycember review.

http://channelawesome.com/disneycember-maleficent/

So yes, in my book it is worse than Love Never Dies, if not just as bad. At least Love Never Dies is a sequel that someone can ignore if they choose to, and draw their own conclusions about what happened after Phantom of the Opera. Maleficent not only gives us a rushed, piss poor backstory on Disney's MOST ICONIC VILLAIN, but portrays her as having never turned evil at all in her own movie, trying to pass THAT off as the REAL story of Maleficent. A backstory doesn't destroy a character as long as the story is well done and the author never forgets that this person is a villain. That's exactly what Maleficent did.

[–] wolfoutlaw 9 years ago

"You have a one dimensional villain who is evil just because, you have a princess who is cute and kind but that's it"

What? Where did that come from? She wasn't evil, and certainly not "just because" - but a complex person who ended up doing bad things, making bad choices because they were hurting/bitter/angry because of realistic reasons, reasons we were clearly shown. I would say the original Disney's Maleficent is the one dimensional villain who is evil just because. I don't recall the animated movie giving her evilness any background or her personality any other characteristic but being evil. Isn't that the very defintion of "just because" and "one dimensional"? As for Aurora...I don't recall her being anything more complex in the animated version either?

"a love interest for the princess who doesn't do anything"

I view him as intentionaly useless for story development but meant as a comic relief and/or to mock the silly and unrealistic habit of fairy tale princesses and princes falling in love without knowing anything at all about their so-called love interest. And I believe that's what they were going for; a parody/satire character/element. Which in my opinion is good because frankly that aspect of fairytales is stupid.

"you have the three fairies who do nothing but bicker and act incompetent"

I agree, this part could've been done much better in itself as well as in comparison to the original fairies.

"you have the protagonist who does bad things because of (you guessed it) a man broke her heart, etc."

Which can happen in real life. But then again, it wasn't just because a man broke her heart. The man cut off and stole her wings. To a fairy that is the same as if someone cut off your legs and stole them so you couldn't have them reattached in any way, and had to spend the rest of your life horribly crippled and unable to do what you were naturally built to do and had been doing since birth. The fact that it was her childhood friend and lover who did that of course made it that much worse & caused the heart-break element.

As in it's more relateable than someone doing bad things just because they're evil which is what the original Maleficent is/does. The original fairy taile is very, very black-and-white but little children don't really need anything more to enjoy a story. I believe this version was aimed to be truly a family film, to offer more complexity and colour for people of all ages to enjoy.

"You have boring, underdeveloped characters and a plot that's been recycled many times over."

Exactly which characters in the original animated version are developed at all during the story or even offered much of a background? I don't recall a single one. At least in this version the main characters were given some background story to build upon and went through changes during the story - the very definition of character development. Whether a character is boring or not, is of course a matter of an opinion.

"However, you also had three female protagonist who rescue men, fight dragons and save women."

They did? Well, it's been a while since I last viewed the animated version. If that's the case then the three fairies sure were better written characters.

"She also reigned in chaos. She cursed infants to die, kidnapped a prince to keep the curse in place, and even psychologically tortured her captive by letting him know what one day, after a life time in her dungeon, he will be released and only released because the woman that he loves is gone forever. This film takes these great characters and destroys them."

Re-visioned them. It would've been destroying them if this version was written and produced by the same people as the original, like Love Never Dies is. You can't destroy an original story or characters by simply creating an alternate version of it, when you're not the original's creator. If anything it can make the original shine even brighter if the remake really was bad.

"One of the dumbest things Disney did in this movie was make Aurora the narrator ("I was the one they called Sleeping Beauty"). Why isn't Maleficent the narrator? This movie was signed, sealed and delivered as Sleeping Beauty form Maleficent's perspective. But she isn't even the narrator.

Aurora would have almost zero first hand knowledge of the events of this movie. For a vast majority of the movie, she's either not born, a young child, or asleep. She isn't telling the "true" story of what happened to Maleficent. She's telling the story someone told her about Maleficent and labeling it as the truth.
"

Having Maleficent's actor narrate would've given away her character development and final result right from the start. As it was narrated after-the-fact and she couldn't have sounded evil or bitter anymore. I think it was well enough from Maleficent's point of view by focusing on her character and showing the events from her point of view to as far extent as possible. Also, you could say it was narrated by Maleficent through Aurora's mouth. Hence, the someone who told her the story could've been Maleficent herself. After all, they were still friends at the end.

"So yes, in my book it is worse than Love Never Dies, if not just as bad. At least Love Never Dies is a sequel that someone can ignore if they choose to, and draw their own conclusions about what happened after Phantom of the Opera. Maleficent not only gives us a rushed, piss poor backstory on Disney's MOST ICONIC VILLAIN, but portrays her as having never turned evil at all in her own movie, trying to pass THAT off as the REAL story of Maleficent. A backstory doesn't destroy a character as long as the story is well done and the author never forgets that this person is a villain. That's exactly what Maleficent did."

I don't understand how does your brain work it that way? It's like you hate a fanfiction story with passion and can't ignore it, but you are more okay with and can ignore a canon sequel as in a story by the original creator that literally and focciailly destroys the characters hat with being by the original creator they ARE the original characters turned into $hit. Your view of a non-canon remake/fanfiction vs. canon sequel is completely upside down.

Like, no matter how much someone else's version claims to be the "true story", it still obviously and technically is not - because a.) it wasn't written by the original characters'/story's creator (unlike Love Never Dies), and b.) it's not even in the same format what with being live-action instead of animated (unlike Love Never Dies which is a stage musical as is the original.)

[–] StrongRex 9 years ago

What? Where did that come from? She wasn't evil, and certainly not "just because"

I was talking about King Stefan.

She wasn't evil, and certainly not "just because" - but a complex person who ended up doing bad things, making bad choices because they were hurting/bitter/angry because of realistic reasons, reasons we were clearly shown.

Exactly. That's why it doesn't work for the character of Maleficent. It's not the way Walt Disney, Marc Davis (animator) or Eleanor Audley (voice actress) intended her. If you're going to make a movie about an infamous, popular villain, the most basic, no-brainer thing to do with him/her is keep them EVIL! Disney should have KNOWN better than to make her a good guy.

If you're going to make a well-known villain a backstory and show us their point of view, it's okay to give them layers and grey areas in order to make them more interesting and multi-dimensional, even to show they weren't always evil. But NOT to say they were never evil at all; that just completely defeats the point of the character! Same with the good guys; they may have their own flaws, show that they have their own prejudices, or that everything they did wasn't perfect. But NOT to say "the good guys were really EVIL OR STUPID!"

I would say the original Disney's Maleficent is the one dimensional villain who is evil just because. I don't recall the animated movie giving her evilness any background or her personality any other characteristic but being evil. Isn't that the very defintion of "just because" and "one dimensional"?

I don't believe Maleficent was originally one-dimensional, she just appeared that way on the surface. She had charm. She had style AND substance. She was bad-ass. She was brilliant in her heartlessness. She was patient, took her time to carry out her plans, and she went to extreme lengths to do them in the most evil way possible.

There was no villain who came before her (or really after her) that could "summon all the powers of Hell." The animated Maleficent does not give one flying rat's ass about popping into the middle of a heavily guarded party, outnumbered hundreds to one, to place the curse on the guest of honor, an infant.

That's how she rolls. Poisoned apples? That's cute. When Maleficent sets a curse, it's a slow march towards your own impending doom. She doesn't want you to die; she wants you to suffer, and then die. You can see this in her every action in the original Disney film. This villain doesn't just walk into the grand throne room of King Stefan's court and say, "Baby dead." No, no, no — she lets that child live just long enough that it forms a life, a personality, connections, and a history. She lets everyone fall in love with this child first. Then she wishes death upon it. Not only will this result in more pain, but it will also create a hopeless fight to save said baby from said curse. These were well-thought-out plans, she calculates her revenge.

Another artful plot is the much-forgotten Prince Philip storyline. After the sleeping curse is enacted and Princess Aurora falls asleep, her fairy godmothers freak out and put the rest of the kingdom to sleep as well. That way she won't be alone, and will wake up with her family, etc. Unfortunately for Prince Philip, Maleficent got to him before the fairies were aware of their love connection. She kidnaps the Prince and throws him in the dungeon. And then this scene happens. This is probably the most calculated and cold villain monologue from any Disney movie, ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC5YUsxROMU

Maleficent's plan is to keep the Prince alive and well, until he's too old for Aurora. To let him sit in misery for 100 years until she releases him as an old man. Prince Philip would be able to save his beloved, only to have her wake to a shriveled, 100-year-old stranger. And that's if he MAKES it. If he doesn't...she's truly gone forever and Maleficent's plan is completely carried out. That is rough. It's chillingly cruel, but astoundingly brilliant. You had to admire this monster for her creativity.

This Maleficent? She's just not that clever. Every act in Maleficent's life is completely reactionary and pretty hasty. Look, I don't need the youthful Maleficent to be a big thinker — she's a child, and that's okay. Had this film spent anytime with teenage Maleficent, we may have been able to connect with her personality more. Alas, we don't and all we get is a silhouetted kiss and then BOOM, older Maleficent, protector of the forest. She doesn't really build any sort of personality; instead all we see is a woman who is reacting to a slew of terrible things her former lover inflicts on her. It just seems like she's running around, coming up with all of these ideas as they hit her. Her go-to move is to zap people into unconscious human balloons, which she then manipulates around in the air. And even that action is entirely impulsive.

Also, she can't do ANYTHING. When we see her fight an army at the beginning, all she does is fly around and slap a few soldiers with her wings. The tree monsters did most of her fighting for her. In Sleeping Beauty, she could transport herself to another place in a matter of seconds, she could shoot lightning from her staff, and she could transform into another form other than her own. I imagine she could even demolish an army of hundreds of thousands of soldiers due to how every single guard was afraid of her during her first exit of the movie. She didn't do any of that in this movie.

She even goes as far as zapping the real-life Prince Philip into an unconscious heap on his horse and then rides with his limp body flailing about on his steed to the castle. Had she just said, "Hey you know that girl you instantly fell in love with, she needs your help," we may all have been spared that embarrassing moment. There's no thought behind Maleficent's madness. Where is the clever woman we met years ago? Meanwhile her enemy (King Stefan) literally goes insane. He's just throwing his anger at the wall and seeing what happens. And what happens is a mess.

After Maleficent was robbed of her wings — the thing that made her powerful, and special (according to the live action origin tale) — she is then robbed of the very thing that made us all remember her 56 years later: She doesn't turn into a dragon.

The entire climax of the Disney fairy tale is hastily handed over to her crow pal, the walking human conscience. I was looking forward to this scene during the entire movie. The big set piece of Maleficent turning into a dragon and laying waste to everyone. And watching my beloved Disney baddie point her finger at some guy and bestow upon him the gift of turning into a dragon was crushing. This is HER thing! Even ABC's Once Upon A Time got this right! And no, this isn't just one more thing that the men take away from Maleficent, this is THE THING. THE THING WE ALL WENT INTO THE THEATER LOOKING FOR AND THEN WATCHED GAPE-JAWED AS IT WAS HANDED TO SOMEONE ELSE. Another example of someone taking her awesomeness away from her.

First Maleficent is stripped her of her wings, then stripped of her grand dragon transformation. What the ever-loving hell, Disney?

As for Aurora...I don't recall her being anything more complex in the animated version either?

Also, I didn't say Aurora was any different in Maleficent (2014) than she is in the original Sleeping Beauty, except maybe she didn't sing this time. Notice I said "you have a princess who is cute and kind but that's it." The movie could have taken this opportunity to give Aurora more of a character and personality, but they didn't. She's no different than she is in the original Sleeping Beauty.

And while we are on the topic of development, I don't think development is needed for all stories; just a well-defined personality and distinctive character traits. Remember that change can be bad too; it's why you hate what they did to the characters in LND; the characters went through changes too, but it was still bad, underdeveloped change! Right? It's how I feel about Maleficent!

No, I don't think Maleficent needed a back story. I think she was just fine without one. However, I was open to it. But all they did was give her a lazy, rushed one and proceeded to retell Sleeping Beauty in a misandrist AND misogynist way. You think LND screams bad Raoul-hater fanfic (which I am in complete agreement with)? Maleficent screams bad fanfiction to its core! And Disney has shown itself to have higher standards than that!

I view him as intentionaly useless for story development but meant as a comic relief and/or to mock the silly and unrealistic habit of fairy tale princesses and princes falling in love without knowing anything at all about their so-called love interest. And I believe that's what they were going for; a parody/satire character/element. Which in my opinion is good because frankly that aspect of fairytales is stupid.

Except they did a better parody of this in Enchanted, and later in Frozen. They even made a point in Frozen that rushing into a relationship or marriage is not just foolishness. It's also downright dangerous. Again, they don't present anything new or creative in this movie, not even with true love being something other than romantic love. I mean after all, Belle didn't take her father's place in the dungeon, did she? Mufasa didn't die saving Simba from the wildebeest stampede, did he? Pinocchio didn't save Geppetto from the whale, did he? Nani didn't do everything she could to keep Lilo, did she? Marlin didn't search every inch of the ocean for Nemo, even though he was deathly afraid of it, did he?

The point is, people are saying that Maleficent gave us something new and creative with the true love thing being different from romantic love, and they're wrong. What it did instead was give us a contrived relationship that not only would never have happened with someone like Maleficent, but the circumstances around it were entirely Maleficent's fault, no matter what she may have done to try and make up for it. She's the reason Aurora was kept from having a loving mother among many other things.

They did? Well, it's been a while since I last viewed the animated version. If that's the case then the three fairies sure were better written characters.

Yes, they did. They went out of their way to keep the princess safe when Maleficent cursed her to die, even Merryweather gave a counter-spell to make it sleep instead. They weren't satisfied with that, and with good reason.

They rescued Prince Phillip from Maleficent's dungeon and helped him get around her attacks and obstacles. They gave him the weapons and magic to kill her in her dragon form. And with that, he was able to wake Aurora.

Also, they had their own unique personalities, they were all about working together even when they found it hard to do so, they were funny, they were charming; in fact, I would even argue that Sleeping Beauty is probably one of the greatest feminist movies of the twentieth century. I want you to consider this:

Name me a big, blockbuster, mainstream film made in the last fifty years that has:

1. A predominately female cast.

2. Where none of the main female protagonists are young or conventionally attractive (this is if you consider Aurora to be a supporting character.)

3. Where they are not sexualised in any way.

4. Where the fact that they are women is simply incidental and in no way effects their competence.

5. Where the female protagonists are working with each other rather than against each other.

Now Maleficent (2014) portrays them as nothing more than stupid buffoons who only care about saving their own skins and have stupidly high, obnoxious voices. They have no relationship with Aurora like they do in the original. The movie also took away their own individualities, so they are no different from each other. I can't even keep track of which fairy has which name! Heck, they make Jar Jar Binks look well developed! But this is something we seem to agree on, I just wanted to expand on that here.

Re-visioned them. It would've been destroying them if this version was written and produced by the same people as the original, like Love Never Dies is. You can't destroy an original story or characters by simply creating an alternate version of it, when you're not the original's creator. If anything it can make the original shine even brighter if the remake really was bad.

I disagree. I don't think it matters whether they were the original creator or not. It's destroying and it's bad for different reasons. If you're the creator, it's bad because you don't care about your original work. If you're remaking something you didn't make originally, you're showing not only disrespect but contempt for the source material.

I don't understand how does your brain work it that way? It's like you hate a fanfiction story with passion and can't ignore it, but you are more okay with and can ignore a canon sequel as in a story by the original creator that literally and focciailly destroys the characters hat with being by the original creator they ARE the original characters turned into $hit. Your view of a non-canon remake/fanfiction vs. canon sequel is completely upside down.

I never said I was okay with Love Never Dies. FAR from it. I even went out of my way to say that I completely agree with you on it. I think it's one of the most atrocious, abominable, most insulting and degrading piece of camel dung ever brought to the stage. Andrew Lloyd Webber gave no thought to how a worthy sequel would even work; instead, he was probably writing it out of wishing Sarah Brightman was still his wife, and to make more money because PoTO is a cash cow.

Apparently, the tragic ending written by Gaston Leroux and included in the original musical (sort of) does not sit well with Webber. He wanted a different ending. So, he decided to write a sequel where the only goal was to give it the ending he wanted. The only problem: how to get there? To get the ending he wanted, Webber re-wrote all of the characters. He gave faults to a character which didn't exist in the original, basically glossed over the sins committed by other characters in the original and destroyed what, to me, is one of the greatest love songs to date.

But that's exactly what Linda Woolverton did to Maleficent! Bottom line: Maleficent should have stayed evil. Period. If they weren't going to keep her evil, they shouldn't have made the movie at all.

I don't really care how Maleficent's back story would have been written as long as it was believable, convincing, worthy, and fit the character of Maleficent as being The Mistress of All Evil. I didn't even want them to include Sleeping Beauty's plot in the movie. But now that I think of it, I would have liked them to make a live-action remake of Sleeping Beauty, like they did with Cinderella, and made THAT the sequel to Maleficent.

But honestly Outlaw, knowing your opinion of Love Never Dies, I'm even more taken aback about how okay you are with Maleficent. Because as said before, it does the exact same thing Love Never Dies does. Maleficent, the other characters, and Disney's Sleeping Beauty were given the Love Never Dies treatment. The only difference is that it's not a sequel. It's a complete retelling of a beloved story that pisses on the original. And to me that's worse. Because DISNEY is the one saying that this is how Maleficent truly is, by having Aurora say it at the end.

Maybe what it comes down to, regarding you and me; maybe you just like Phantom more than you like Sleeping Beauty. That's very possible, because you did say you might need to see the movie again. I grew up with Sleeping Beauty; it's my fourth favorite Disney movie, and Maleficent is my favorite Disney villain. I have NEVER seen her portrayed as an all-around good guy before they gave her her own movie, and they didn't need to start now.

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

I'm sorry. You're wrong. It's not a fanfic. It's real. Webber made a REAL Sequel to Phantom. Nothing of it follows a fanfic. There are no plotholes. It's real. Fanfics have plot holes and make it their own.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.