Talk:Maleficent (film)/Archive 1

Cast
No news source has revealed as to who is/isn't in the executive cast of Maleficent. Only few cast-members who have been confirmed to be in the film, are in that executive position - only issue is, some have been added in the infobox - without any sources confirming their position.

I have reverted the Cast section within the infobox, as it not only fails WP:OR, but as well as WP:CRYSTAL.

Whoever would like that cast section in the infobox added back in, please do so - with the sources confirming the actors' executive cast position, otherwise it will be reverted. Thank you, -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 03:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We always place cast actors in the infobox, if it is a known fact they will be main cast. This Brenton guy sounds relatively new, so it's a possibility he may not be in the main cast. Now please, end this childish charade. Rusted AutoParts 16:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rusted, I suggest you start assuming good-faith before I go ahead and start a "charade" over at AN/I. I couldnt care less if Brenton has been in the business for five days. We edit based on what the media reveals. I'm at the moment not in a position to make edits to the article in question, however in the morning I shall. That means removing cast members who havnt been confirmed to appear in the executive cast, of this film, which is 2 years away. Edit warring is "childish", for your information. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 17:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Movie Style
it was a similar movie look style of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and Oz the Great and Powerful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.172.24 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Teaser poster
I have been attempting to post the film's teaser poster but my Wikiing powers are resisting me right now. Can someone fix it? This is the poster, on the website of the guy who designed it. http://www.anthonymatula.com/blog/?p=457 Katana Geldar (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul Dini?
I thought Paul Dini had a hand in writing the script for the film? Can anyone help clear this up for me? 71.188.30.224 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Runtime
97-98 minutes? 135 Minutes? Which is it? Crboyer (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Intervening edits
I was going to re-add the intervening edits lost when I reverted the edit-warring anon IP who reinserted uncited POV claims that the sources do not support. But one of them removed the fact that it's the director's debut film, which seems like a pertinent fact. Another added additional plot content that per WP:FILM is pre-release overdetail when MOS is to have a brief synopsis only. And the other was the addition of Brazil's release date in the infobox, when MOS is to have only the date of first public release anywhere and the producing country's first release. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

CC of post at User talk:Njorent
I know you haven't made many edits and may not understand all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In as friendly and constructive a way as possible, I need to explain that your edits just now represented serious violations of both. You cannot simply remove another editor's properly cited sources, and each Wikipedia editor is responsible for verifying his or her own edits with reliable-source citations. You cannot demand that another editor do that work for you. Now, I invite you to discuss any issues with this on the article's talk page, and while I know you mean well, I do need to explain that edit-warring will necessitate admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014
n May 2012, Elle Fanning was cast as Princess Aurora, and Sharlto Copley as the male lead, Stefan, then described as the half-human, half-fairy bastard son of a human king

Please change bastard to illegitimate.

As although technically correct, the term is still used as an offensive word, and as this is an account of a Disney movie, it's not unlikely that younger children might land on this page

94.10.157.134 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I'm guessing you won't find a consensus to censor this... — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Production
"Richard D. Zanuck was offered the role of producer prior to his death later that year" - please correct "prior to his death" to simpler descriptive phrasing such as "but died": as this is an account of a Disney movie, it's not unlikely that younger children might land on this page and come to believe that Zanuck might in other circumstances have been offered the producer gig after his death. 92.234.60.39 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)RoyWatson
 * ✅ ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 23:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

burned and locked away
Did he order the spinning wheels "burned or locked away" as it currently reads in the article? Can you lock them away if you already destroyed them with fire? I haven't seen the film so don't know what happened. Did he actually say to burn them and lock them away, or just one of the two?  D r e a m Focus  08:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen it. The spinning wheels were thrown in an isolated room and burned inside. I think we should rewrite it as "locked away and burned." ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 08:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

To me it looked like not all of them were burned. Only some of them. Otherwise they would all have been charred ashes later in the movie. If they were burned, it was a poor job, because, while some showed a few char marks on them, most looked like they were simply broken into pieces. Yet we know from an earlier seen that some were indeed burned. - SayerSong

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014
In the second paragraph of the page, where it say's the film was met with mixed reviews, I wanted to add onto the final sentence about how many critics praised Angelina Jolie's portrayal of the title character. 19CCat97 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)C.Boudreaux

19CCat97 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014
The sentence "The guards and Stefan, all decked in iron armor and using iron weapons, strike and being to kill Maleficent" has a grammatical error in it. The word "being" should be "begin" so that it reads "The guards and Stefan, all decked in iron armor and using iron weapons, strike and begin to kill Maleficent"

97.119.91.218 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks! -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014
Please change language in the plot description. Maleficent did not make true love's kiss capable of lifting the curse as an act of mercy; she states in the movie she did it because there's no such thing, thereby making it impossible for the curse to be lifted.

72.54.115.226 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Maleficent
Maleficent-Of all the villains Walt Disney created after the witch in "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", none is as sinister or as powerful as the wicked witch Maleficent. So awesome were her powers in the 1959 release "Sleeping Beauty" that she was able to turn herself into a monstrous, fire-eating dragon to try to prevent Prince Phillip from reaching the beautiful Princess Aurora. But her powers proved to be no match for the virtue and sword of the Prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.116.44 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert: The opening paragraph states that the story is told from the perspective of the antagonist. But at the end of the movie we learn this is not true, it is in fact told from the perspective of Aurora, or at best Aurora's perspective of the antagonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.18.194 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mistake in plot section
Please change "They older they get the farther apart they grow until Stefan (Sharlto Copley) stops coming to see her." To "The older they get the farther apart they grow until Stefan (Sharlto Copley) stops coming to see her."

Also, Maleficent doesn't give "the antidote as true love's kiss" as an act of mercy towards the baby - she does it out of further spite because she believes (and know Stefan believes) there is no true love, since Stefan for her 16th birthday had given her a "true love's kiss" Therefore, "However, in an act of mercy towards the innocent child, she gives the curse an antidote in true love's kiss." could be change to something like "Out of spite, since both she and Stefan no longer believe in true love, she also adds that Aurora can be woken by true love's kiss, while fully believing that as nonexistent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.180.135 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre?
So which is it? Dark fantasy or high fantasy? The opening says one thing, the categories say both. That's wishy-washy. If it's both we need to say so in the text.

Also, regarding the categories: Is this really a "a film about dragons"? It includes a dragon in one scene. Does that make this a film about dragons? Maleficent is included in a category called "shapeshifting in fiction," which indicates that the film includes shapeshifters but isn't about shapeshifters. Isn't there a more appropriate category this film could go into re: dragons? If not, could we start a category called "dragons in films" or "dragons in fiction," just as we now have "shapeshifting in fiction"? --209.122.114.237 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Box office predictions
I've removed the section as Wikipedia is not a crystalball to what a movie will gross or perform well or not. It also is heavy of WP:RECENTISM. This is a courtesy note in case my edit is reverted to invoke discussion, as it is a WP:BOLD edit. Tutelary (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained my revert in the edit summary. Hope to see some third-party opinions. ALittle Que nhi  ( talk to me ) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Identity of the Narrator
The current plot section says that the narrator reveals herself to be Aurora. However, it is equally possible that this voice is Angelina Jolie's (Can someone confirm?) implying that she (or, more specifically, her compassion and benevolence) are the 'sleeping beauty' referred to in the title. --74.100.206.135 (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

IMDB credits Janet McTeer as the narrator, and Charlotte Chatton (too old to have played her on screen) as Aurora. So there may have been two voices.
 * The Press Kit by Disney credits JANET MCTEER as narrator and has no mentions of Chatton. Wouldn't be the first time there's wrong info on IMDB. --87.148.92.218 (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight given to positive reviews in critical reception section
From RT and Metacritic, the film has roughly a 50% score. However, our critical review section has essentially nothing but positive reviews. Even Staskiewicz's review, which is written as a apparent counterpoint(it's lead by "On the contrary") to Taylor's glowing one, is actually a generally positive review, with a B- from Staskiewicz. The 3rd paragraph of the section does not even pretend to contain negative reviews, and the entire section is grossly weighted with positive ones - coming up far short of a 50/50 ratio. Going to tag for NPOV and will propose a more trim and balanced version up at a later date. Cannolis (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice no particular mention of how some people disliked it especially for so completely rewriting the plot and changing the characters of a well-loved classic. I've seen plenty of people comment to that effect and think I've seen professional reviews with the same point of view. Not only did it make an evil character just nice and misunderstood, it also made effective and brave characters ineffectual (fairies, prince) and made some good characters evil etc Orlando098 (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot incomprehensible
Does this section make sense to anyone? I think it needs to be reworded.

"Meanwhile in the castle, King Stefan, mad and blinded by his paranoia about killing Maleficent, King Stefan sits in his castle to speak with clipped wings Maleficent, and even refuses to see his own wife, Queen Leila, Aurora's mother, who is dying on his deathbed, by the concern's own paranoia of her own husband, King Stefan, and their desire to want to kill Maleficent."

2601:282:3:1F:8A0:7913:D2B5:7977 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. Hopefully it makes more sense now after this edit by . -- Chamith   (talk)  19:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Budget
I am editing the budget to reflect the amount that was actually spent on the production, which was made in the UK on a budget of £ 167,277,249. This information is also contained in the actual filings for the production company, but they are summarized in the Forbes Contributor article. The credibility of the contributor has been established and this particular article has been deemed a reliable source in the RSNB. For the dollar amount, I used the historical exchange rate calculator at the Measuringworth site, which was 1.57. Depauldem (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This editor has been using his interpretation of budgets on several other pages, including at least four talk pages, where other editors have not reached a consensus. I ask him not to edit-war, for which he has been warned multiple times, and wait until his issues are resolved — which would have been a lot less time-consuming and confusing he had stuck with one talk page instead of four in an apparent effort to tire other editors out. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Chrisw80 and again. Tenebrae is doing it again here. Ditto Ant-Man and other places.  I made my edit, added a note on the talk page and he comes along to revert saying that because he disagrees with me, that's grounds for reverting.  Are you kidding me??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)