Disney Fight #4 (I lost Track. It's 4).

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Is Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" actually more feminist than "Maleficent".

I want to know your thoughts before I defend my position.

For those of you who don't know anything about the two, here are some highlights/lowlights from the two:

Final Battle (Sleeping Beauty: Prince Philip & the good fairies vs Maleficent)


Final Battle (Maleficent: King Stefan vs Maleficent):
Sadly I can't find a good video. Instead of having Maleficent turn into the dragon, she transformers her male bird servant (whom she keeps in human form for most of the movie).

King Stefan expresses concern about his daughter's betrothal (Sleeping Beauty)


Street Rat Stefan cuts off Maleficent's wings (Maleficent):


Maleficent curses Aurora to die, with no cure (Sleeping Beauty):


Maleficent curses Aurora to a weaker, "sleep-like death" that can be undone by true love's kiss (Maleficent):


Philip proves to be a (relatively) modern man (Sleeping Beauty):


Philip's only redeeming quality: Not wanting to malest an unconscious girl (Maleficent. It's a good quality, but that's all there is to him)


One of the good fairies weakens Maleficent's curse (Sleeping Beauty):


The good fairies prepare for Aurora's birthday (Maleficent):


The good fairies prepare for Aurora's birthday (Sleeping Beauty)

[Dr_Liszt]

The first Sleeping Beauty was not feminist at all. But the faeries were awesome and the villain was awesome.

Maleficent was shoved in your face feminism.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

The first Sleeping Beauty was not feminist at all. But the faeries were awesome and the villain was awesome.

Maleficent was shoved in your face feminism.

I don't know. 4 strong female characters and 2 bland ones vs 1 strong female character, 2 bland ones, and 3 stooges...

[Dr_Liszt]

Sleeping Beauty is more enjoyable and has Tchaikovsky music.

Looking back at Maleficent, I'd probably find it tedious and torturous.

So Tchaikovsky wins, all the time, forever.

[sikax]

Tchaikovsky wins, all the time, forever.

Having utterly no interest in or knowledge of either movie, this is correct.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Tchaikovsky wins, all the time, forever.

Having utterly no interest in or knowledge of either movie, this is correct.

I believe I've posted enough clips for you to make an informed decision.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

off on a tangent, this article sums up why I didn't like "Maleficent".

http://io9.com/how-could-disney-do-this ... 1585013187" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aels]

Maleficent was great as long as you're able to view her as an alternate canon Maleficent and not the same one as in the animated film. If you treat it as an alternate interpretation of the character, similar to the various different versions of fairytales that there are floating around, I think it's a pretty good film. I love cursed-a-baby-because-she-felt-like-it-boss-bitch-Maleficent but I warmed to a different interpretation even though I didn't expect to. Weird as it sounds, I liked the date rape subtext. It's a good way of bringing discussions about bodily autonomy to kids too young to have a conversation about bodily autonomy. It's problematic to have a rape and revenge story but Maleficent's violation is treated as unambiguously evil and I appreciate that as a message.

Not turning into a dragon was some stone cold bullshit though.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Maleficent was great as long as you're able to view her as an alternate canon Maleficent and not the same one as in the animated film. If you treat it as an alternate interpretation of the character, similar to the various different versions of fairytales that there are floating around, I think it's a pretty good film. I love cursed-a-baby-because-she-felt-like-it-boss-bitch-Maleficent but I warmed to a different interpretation even though I didn't expect to. Weird as it sounds, I liked the date rape subtext. It's a good way of bringing discussions about bodily autonomy to kids too young to have a conversation about bodily autonomy. It's problematic to have a rape and revenge story but Maleficent's violation is treated as unambiguously evil and I appreciate that as a message.

Not turning into a dragon was some stone cold bullshit though.

I'd probably be able to accept it as a retelling, but they took away the one thing (aside from Maleficent being a stonecold biatch) everyone loved about her, which was the whole turning into a dragon thing.

Wicked does the "make a villain relatable" thing so much better.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Just realized I never actually posted my argument:

Why I think Sleeping Beauty is More Feminist than Maleficent:

Sleeping Beauty has 4 powerful female characters. There is of course Maleficent, who is so strong she can summon the powers of hell. She is smart, cunning, cold, and calculating. She imprisons Prince Philip, intent on holding him in her dungeon for a hundred years, at which point she will release him so that he may kiss his love and Aurora will awaken to a 100 year old stranger. That is cruel and it's what you want in any villain. Not to mention she turns into a fucking dragon. In addition to Maleficent, you have the three good fairies. They are able to raise Aurora and be mother figures to her. If it weren't for them, Maleficent would not have been defeated. One of them weakened the curse placed on Aurora so that she could be awakened (Maleficent cursed her to die). They are the ones that release Prince Philip and they enchant his sword so that it strikes true at the heart of Maleficent while in her dragon form. Philip is brave and chivalrous, though one could argue against his initial street (forest?) harassment. Still, he does have modern ideals (at least for the time period set: “You're living in the past. It's the 14th century", rejecting the notion he must marry a princess, believing Aurora to be a peasant when he first met her). In addition, he has just as much speaking time as Aurora. Even King Stefan goes so far as to have worries about his daughter's betrothal.

Maleficent diverges quite a bit from the original in terms of characterization. To me, Stefan is more developed but he's just as simplistic as his animated counterpart. While I like the allegory, he's reduced to a simplistic villain, and not one nearly as good as the animated Maleficent. There's no depth to him. There wasn't much depth to animated Maleficent either, but she was clever and cunning and cruel and we loved her for it. Stefan on the other hand was really just a plot device to set up a metaphor. Philip, while heroic in Sleeping Beauty, becomes a throw away character. He does nothing. I suppose his hesitance to kiss an unconscious girl is to be commended, but there's absolutely nothing to him. Diaval, Maleficent's raven familiar whom she keeps in human form, is the closest thing to a decent man. But he's really a bird, so he doesn't count. Now we get to the 5 women. Other than Aurora knew Maleficent, what do we really know about her that we didn't in the original? Nothing. I can't think of a characteristic about Aurora in “Maleficent" that I didn't already know from “Sleeping Beauty". Then you have the 3 fairies. In the 1959 version, these fairies have comical aspects, but they are still shown to be competent in the most important aspects (mother figures, rescuers, and magic users). In “Maleficent", they are reduced to incompetent nitwits. While the animated versions don't know how to cook or sew, these live action/cgi versions can't even feed a baby or keep it from walking off a cliff. Finally, there's Maleficent. Rather than being a villain, she's a victim, drugged and having her wings clipped by Stefan, the person she was in love with (the allegory is pretty clear). I was fine with the allegory, but it all falls apart from there. By adding in this explanation, it makes even less sense as to why she would curse Aurora, rather than Stefan. At least in the original, it was because she was a badass who didn't give a damn who she hurt. Here though, she's supposed to be good. Why punish your attacker through his kid when you can punish the attacker himself? Not only this, but the curse she places is weaker, being the one to add the true love's kiss caveat because she believes it won't work as she thinks such a thing is nonexistent. Finally, they take away one of her most memorable and powerful moments, the transformation into a dragon and give it to her manbird servant. If “Maleficent" were really feminist, why take away one of her most empowering moments and give it to a male character?

Conclusion: Sleeping Beauty (1959) is actually more feminist than Maleficent (2014)

[Dr_Liszt]

I might agree with Apollo now. Sleeping Beauty was about the faeries. Aurora only appears like 10 minutes in the whole movie, the protagonists were the faeries. So I was pissed when they turned them into the stooges in Maleficent. It's the main reason I'll find it torturous, 3 stooges comedy IS torture.

Also, for some reason Disney nowadays thinks Feminism is surrounding a girl with a whole male cast/using the "a man in my life wronged me" that's why I'm a strong woman because I can't be strong on my own, but as long as they kiss another girl is ok. (I did like the Frozen concept though.)

The only part I appreciated about Maleficent is the whole "I won't kiss an unconscious girl." But Maleficent did it anyway so I guess the concept was lost!

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Come to think of it, it would have been irresponsible for animated Philip not to kiss Aurora.

[aels]

Yo Phillip, having good intentions doesn't mean you get to disrespect other people's autonomy [/feministkilljoy]

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Yo Phillip, having good intentions doesn't mean you get to disrespect other people's autonomy [/feministkilljoy]

Feminists - willing to murder a small kingdom. Good to know .