[ SECRET POST #2709 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2709 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 041 secrets from Secret Submission Post #387.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

see, that's what I'm iffy about because anybody who skims the surface of that thought isn't going to automatically think 'rape metaphor+reclaimed power' but 'rape metaphor+that's why she's evil' or some mindless bullshit like that

[(Anonymous)]

see, though, I find it empowering and beautiful, especially since she gets them returned. I think it's safe to assume most people didn't 'get' that if it was intended, but for someone who sees it that way, it can reflect on their own issues and journey - the point of the whole business is that she'snot really evil, at least not really or completely or permanently, so I think it's okay? (ntayrt tho so idk)

[(Anonymous)]

i guess. it just seems weird that they'd take one of the more unrepentant villians in the disney mythos and try to make her sympathetic. when i watched the original sleeping beauty i didn't think for a second that there was a reason behind her being evil, i just thought 'hey, who the heck thought it was a good idea to not invite the most powerful, bad ass witch in the kingdom to the party and act like she wasnt going to find out, they gon learn today' and she p. much schooled them

like

why can't someone be evil for the sake of being evil and not because of some overdone metaphor or something?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, it's firmly established that it's an AU from the original Sleeping Beauty film, so it's more like comics and reboots having different universes than taking the Maleficent from that film and 'ruining' her, isn't it? At least, that's how I see it.

[(Anonymous)]

OHHHHH

ohhhhh OK, you know what, that makes MUCH more sense then

i didn't know it was supposed to be an au and not like... 'the reason behind maleficent's madness' or something

ok that's different then

but, ehh, i still don't think i like it. i'm more open to accept it now though! it's kinda like the marvel series, i really like the movies and i hate ultimates so i get it now

[(Anonymous)]

She wasn't really evil, though. That's what so many people (even in the comments on this secret) don't like.

[(Anonymous)]

i dunno, i think cursing an entire kingdom because she didn't get invited to a party was pretty fucking evil, not to mention that she kidnapped philip to keep him from falling under the spell himself so when he DID see aurora he was going to be an old ass man

i mean

are those the actions of a not evil person cause i think not

[(Anonymous)]

but the Mal in the Maleficent movie doesn't do any of those things, or am I mixing up what we're even talking about ha whoops

[hiyami]

She doesn't do any of that in the movie Maleficent.

[lunabee34]

That's the part I don't get, though.

I am not at all raining on anybody's parade or suggesting that anyone is wrong for not liking this film or wanting different things from it.

But for me, the Disney cartoon Maleficent is one dimensional. She's just evil. For no reason. She has no motivation for overreacting to being omitted from a party. I have huge childhood nostalgia for the movie (her dress is pink! no, it's blue! no, it's pink!).

And whenever I see people objecting to Maleficent not being evil for the sake of being evil, I automatically think, "But this is a remake."

To me, the purpose of doing another adaptation of a story is to do something different with it. I remember how stoked we were in the 90s for that new version of Psycho. And then, with the exception of the loving and lingering closeup of Anne Hesch's butthole as she died in the shower, it was a SHOT FOR SHOT REPLICA OF THE ORIGINAL. SHOT FOR SHOT. EXACTLY THE SAME. What was the point of that?

[(Anonymous)]

Sticking in an image Hitchcock himself might have wished he could have gotten away with back then, IDK?

[lunabee34]

Heeeeee.

I mostly meant why do a shot for shot remake of something (which seems to be what some of the people complaining about Maleficent want). We already have the Disney movie; I expect a remake to have fundamental differences.

Anne Heche's butthole, I do not expect. LOL

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you. Beautifully put.

It always makes me laugh when people say, "But we just want this character to be evil for no reason," since the complaint for literally decades about villains in general is that they're often just mustache twirlers with no reason for doing what they do except they're the bad guy.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess the thing is that for Maleficent, it makes sense for her to be evil and petty. She's a powerful fae creature. They are often terrible and petty. And the fact is that she doesn't just commit evil for evil's sake. She curses Aurora due to a political slight to her. Definitely evil and an over-reaction and extremely petty, but... just for the hell of it.

[lunabee34]

Awww. *blushes*

I agree with you completely.