#for specific examples see: Maleficent and Aurora

[viriborne]

Something something there’s a Reason why “classic” Disney villains have the same gender as the hero of the movie.

The formula is literally:

A. Older, flamboyant man preys on younger, masculine, and demonstrably heterosexual male hero.

OR

B. Older, “ugly”, female widow/spinster preys on younger, traditionally feminine, and demonstrably heterosexual female hero.

Hell, Maleficent is LITERALLY a spinster who lures in a young woman she is obsessed with

S2g when any Twst fan talks abt the queer-coding issue Disney has with their villains it’s always to gargle Disney balls. I cannot begin to explain to y’all how making VILLAINS stereotypical depictions of GAY PEOPLE isn’t “progressive” and was done MALICIOUSLY. This is simple math.

[endollvors]

Taking a Propaganda

Propaganda is definitely a thing. It's been covered before, probably more throughly, that the Auradon sponsored Posters and Television channels on the Isle are, kinda wack. Like, that's a section of the budget that's being used judiciously when the main source of food is canonically garbage.

Consider also, the way that Mal, is framed in news footage in Descendants 2. (Rags to riches success story. Aspirational, A triumph of Auradon, look at her now. She's an example. etc.)

VK day in D3 being a holiday. The fact that the applications are Collected the same day as the children are Selected.

That's not what we're here for though. I'm taking you on a journey.

Ok, so School of Secrets, the promotional youtube shorts, not the book series, is I think, technically canon. It's canon the same way a guest passed out in the laundry room at a house party is still attending. They're a minute long and they fascinate me.

This is a screenshot from Episode 9. Where PC culture cancels the school play, (Weird series) which was Supposed to be an adaptation of What's that Spell? a stage dramatization of Maleficent's attack on Aurora's kingdom. Other provided options are 12 Angry Dalmatians, Book of Sultan, and 7 Brides for 7 Dwarfs before they settle on My Fair Lady and the Tramp. May I just say before I get going, fun puns. I would watch the hell out of Tramp's Pygmalion arc.

This begs an interesting question though. Because this isn't, in the world of the series, fiction. Not only are all the plays about a terrible thing that happened, they are about terrible things that happened within living memory to specifically the parents of these kids' peers. Things that caused so much damage that a Generational Prison Island was considered a proportional response and it's an incredibly unpopular policy decision to want to change that. Now, imagine for a moment, being a parent, and going to see your darling pumpkin be an extra in the school play, and then its about how your best friend's stepmother tried to get her killed when she was 14, and also you're a character. Your kid didn't get the role.

They do this twice a year.

Twice a year, the AKs go on stage to replay their parents' story and celebrate the overthrow of a villain. This is some 9/11 Never Forget shit.

[gemsofgreece]

10 best animated movies to watch in Greek

One of the best ways to practice a language is by watching a movie. Even more so, watching an animated movie dubbed in your target language can be really fun and useful, as these movies tend to include jokes (even inside jokes specific to the language) and songs. So, without further ado, here is my personal list of 10 best animated movies to watch in Greek.

10. Shrek 2

The reason I am recommending Shrek 2 instead of Shrek is just because I have the - maybe not standard, but certainly not unpopular - opinion that Sherk 2 is overall a funnier movie than Shrek. The Greek dub maintains successfully all the witty and somewhat adult-oriented humour. The voice casting done for characters like Donkey, Puss in Boots and Gingy is memorable and accurate.

9. Lion King

The voice casting is really good. Adult Simba has a sympathetic voice, Mufasa has a superb kingly radio voice, the hyenas are hysterical, Zazu is funny too, Nala's voice is warm and womanly. I also love Scar's voice. Scar has a sinister voice but it's a weaker, not as “thick” a voice as Mufasa’s, just like Scar relied on the evilness of his mind and not his muscles. Timon and Pumba's dub is iconic. Greek Can you feel the love and Be Prepared are fantastic versions of the songs. And Greek Mufasa just steals every scene vocally, especially those when he appears in Simba's memory.

8. Monsters INC

Another amazing voice casting for all characters but we all (Greeks) know that this is one man's show. Christos Hatzipanayotis just KILLS it as Mike Wazowski. I believe Greek Wazowski is much funnier than the original. Also let's remember "Fovízume yatí sas frondízume" lol the Greek "We scare because we care (for you)"

7. Finding Nemo

This dub did something special with the casting. It casted as Marlin and Dory two actors that had already worked together in a super famous comedy series as a couple. As a result, their chemistry is off the roof and Dimitra Papadopoulou's voice is incredibly accurate for Dory's character. Dory's whale language is hysterical and I also love the incredibly relaxed voice actor they found for that turtle reincarnation of Bob Marley. All other casting is good too, except I want to slap the extremely nasal Nemo.

6. Sleeping Beauty

Although I love this movie dearly and I really like its Greek version, I actually place it that high because I have found it to be really popular with foreign people. Some say they like Aurora's song better in Greek, which I find interesting as I really love the original. It is surely a masterful work though. It is an old movie and the Greek actors speak more elegantly, more sophisticatedly like people tended to, back then. The voices suit properly an aethereal princess and her dreamy prince, the fairies have these warm, elderly, ladylike voices and Maleficent also is imposing and very cold.

5. Aristocats

This is a perfect example where it is clear that both the voice casting directors and the actors worked their asses off. Every actor chosen is simply ideal for their character, including the kittens, Edgar the evil servant, the diva, the super SUPER old lawyer, the tomcats, Lady is so prim and proper, Uncle Waldo and the goose nieces with their Britsh accent Greek lol BUT. I have no idea how it dawned on them to make the dog couple have a comedic Heptanesian island accent but whoever that was, they were a bloody genius. Not only it's impeccably performed, it's twice as hilarious when you see them in an old Parisian environment speaking some really strong Heptanesian out of nowhere. The dogs in the original do not have any particularly heavy accent to my understanding, so if you watch the original after you have watched the Greek, you won't even understand they are supposed to be funny. I love that the Greek directors took the uneventful speech of the dogs and were like "Clearly, we 're gonna make them speak extreme Heptanesian" XD

4. Spirit: The Stallion of the Cimarron

Spirit has mostly narration and songs, it has very few dialogues. Its songs are amazing though and they really make a difference in the movie. In the Greek dub, both the narrating and singing role was given to singer - actor Yannis Savvidakis who is very talented. Not only he performed those songs wonderfully but I liked how well it maintained the feel of rock ballads coming from America, despite being sung in a language from a place that has nothing to do with any of this.

3. The Emperor's New Groove

Okay, we reached the Golden Triad. The Emperor's New Groove is, simply put, the best Disney comedy to date. If we consider that the Greek version is funnier than the original, as I strongly believe, you get a comedy for the ages. The voice casting is PERFECT. Every voice chosen is like it was created for the character, the characters get life and personality through the vocal performances. Kuzco sounds blasé, egocentric, sarcastic and you want to slap him silly, Kronk sounds like a soft dumbass himbo which is what he is, Pacha is your everyday good-hearted peasant, Yzma is killing it as the old ambitious narcissist. The humour is awesome and tranferred ideally into Greek comedy. It just works on every level. I can't explain it more, it's just perfect. While this movie is unfairly obscure and underrated on a global level, in Greece it was a hit and people still remember quotes by heart, exactly beause the dub was so god-tier level.

2. The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Okay. The dub of dubs. The Dub of Notre Dame. Seriously, this is a masterpiece on every aspect. Again, this is better than the original. Esmeralda has a sensual, really beautiful speaking voice and an outstanding singing one (Alcestis Protopsalti y'all), Frollo has an ideal casting in that he sounds like a bad person but in a totally realistic way (as he is also a very realistic villain) and he sounds so very sophisticated, very elegant. Sinister and elegant, which makes total sense as in the Disney version he is the supreme justice minister of Paris. Quasimodo is voiced by Sakis Rouvas (a sexy singer with a soft voice), who a few found like a somewhat odd pairing but it works perfectly since Disney's Quasimodo is soft, sensitive and considerably sophisticated as well. Clopin's singing is done by tenor Konstantinos Paliatsaras. The songs in the Greek version are in my opinion better performed than in English. Hellfire is quite possibly the most loved villain song in Greece. A small example to understand the level of perfection; the intro song "Bells of Notre Dame" has an extremely difficult ending note that only a few versions globally managed to hit. Even the original singer struggles with the note, he hits it but a little weakly, he is very supported and almost covered by backing vocals. In other versions, even this is not possible at all and singers just skip the note. The Greek version by Paliatsaras is one of the very few where the note is hit correctly, he essentially rips it apart, but I think it is also the only version (unless something escapes me) where the lyrics were different in a way that it made a difference to the singing. All versions I have heard are a variation of the original "bells, bells, bells, bells" which prepares the crescendo / raise of the pitch and then, "of notre DAAAAAME". Greek is the only version I have listened to where a full sentence is delivered effortlessly, without a repetition of "bells". "Ke ihún pandú kambánes stin karthyá tis panaYAAAAAS". It's a full sentence instead of a convenient one-syllable word over and over. Of course, it had to be done because the word for bells in Greek (kambánes) wouldn't work but it still was a harder thing to deliver than the repetition and it was accomplished even better. Okay, in short, Oscar worthy dub. Perfect in every way. I am in love with it, you can tell. The only reason it is not first is because the first spot had to be saved for the obvious one.

1. Hercules

The obvious first spot. Of course, it doesn't take it without deserving it. Greeks really made sure to give this one even more attention to detail. So, it doesn't only feel like it's natural, it also IS the most natural one, as contemporary languages go. All voice casting is once more ideal. Hercules, or Heracles as he is of course in Greek, has a sensitive, warm, sympathetic voice. They did a great thing with Megara when they gave the role to Evridiki who has a more mature, seasoned voice which fits Megara's character and not like a girly, princessy, out-of-place voice. Famous comedian Lakis Lazopoulos steals the show in all his scenes and they are MANY, since he plays Philoktetes and Pain AND Panic, all three of them! But he can't steal the scenes where Hades is in, as Konstantinos Tzoumas is in reality the big star of the movie. First and foremost, you watch this movie for Hades. One more fantastic detail in my opinion is what they did with the Muses. So you know, the original movie Muses are singing a liberal style of American gospel. Instead of ditching it as unfitting and entirely inaccurate, the Greek directors played along with it. Most notably, one of the Muses is voiced by Julie Massino, a vocal coach and singer born and raised in the US (I don't know if she has Greek descent) who lives and works in Greece, so she has a natural and strong American accent in her Greek! I just found this so cool. It is a really cool dub. They knew the stakes were very high and they delivered down to the very last detail.

*We really had to title this: Heracles - Beyond the Myth...!

[withlovelunette]

Hi lunette! I just wanted to say I love your wip so far, and I'm excited to see where it goes next. The vibes are already amazing :) Question: How do you separate your story from the original when you're writing retellings?

Hello Sab! :D thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed it!! ♡ This is gonna be a slightly lengthy answer, I'm so very sorry, but I tried my best to be articulate and concise :,)

There's mainly two ways most retellings (in my experience) are written; Deconstructing/reconstructing, and borrowing the narrative structure.

Borrowing Narrative Structure

The narrative structure one is a bit simpler and straightforward, so I'll start off with that one! This means that the story is pretty much the exact same as the original, but it's usually put in a different setting/scenario. For example, taking the story of Snow White and setting it in the 1950s, or gender swapping Little Red Riding Hood. The narrative structure is pretty much the same and runs parallel to the original (as in it hits all/most of the same plot beats in chronological order), it's just a "reskin" of the original tale. Personally, I don't enjoy this form as much (both in my own creations and other media), but there are a lot of fun things you can do with it (such as A Cinderella Story replacing Cinderella's shoe with a music playlist on her phone).

Examples of this type of retelling include; Most Disney classics borrow from Grimm, A Cinderella Story (2004), Sydney White (2007), The Lion King (1994), Clueless (1995), The Lunar Chronicles (2012-2015) <- that last one is arguably a slight reconstruction as well, but I'd argue that it generally follows the overall same plot beats of Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel and Snow White individually before the stories converge!

Again, I don't usually write these, but these are generally easy to tell apart from the original from an aesthetic and visual standpoint. I will say, if I were to write one of these, I'd want to keep in mind exactly why I'm changing the setting/scenario, and what that change brings to the story. I think that's why A Cinderella Story remains so popular, because while the story is very generic and predictable if you know the original tale, the changes are compelling because the movie ties a seemingly timeless story to a specific time and place, and that brings about organic changes in the story here and there (such as replacing the magical glass slipper with something that exists in its given setting).

Deconstruction and Reconstruction

Deconstruction and reconstruction is probably what most people think of when talking about retellings though, and that's mainly what I enjoy as well! Unlike the previous method that essentially reskins the original structure, this method takes the structure, picks it apart, and puts it back together in new and (ideally) compelling ways. I think Disney's Maleficent is a good example of a reconstruction, because while it does contain the same plot beats of the original (evil fairy visits royal family during the princess' birth, the princess is cursed to prick her finger and fall asleep, she's sent off to live with good fairies and meets a prince, returns home, pricks her finger, falls asleep, awakened by true love's kiss), the entire story is reconstructed in two primary ways; The evil fairy (maleficent) is not the antagonist, and the prince isn't Aurora's true love's kiss. This forces the story to reconstruct itself to fill in those gaps, making Aurora's father the antagonist, and Maleficent becomes Aurora's true love's kiss (also a nice trope subversion, which is often applied to these types of retellings). It deconstructs an important role in the story and an important principle in the story and reconstructs them to retell the same story with slight alterations.

I will also add that some retellings reconstruct the plot/narrative, while others simply reconstruct characters. Some do both!

Examples of this type of retelling include; Maleficent (2014), Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), Heartless (2016), Ever After High (2013), Alice in Wonderland (2010), Ella Enchanted (2004), Frozen (2013), Hoodwinked (2005).

On a last note; I wanna add that these two categories definitely operate on a spectrum! Especially since there really is no such thing as an "original" version when dealing with things like fairytales and folktales, because the written versions are usually based on various oral versions that have changed and developed with time and have regional variations! Plus, some reconstructions can still largely follow the same plot beats! But I find these categories to be an accessible way to distinguish various types of retellings and figuring out where you want to go with your own.

And ALSO! I lied there's technically a third category of retellings that's pretty common where they just switch POVs (like Maleficent kinda does) but these often wind up still leaning more towards deconstruction/reconstruction or borrowing the same narrative, so ^^;

Separating my retelling from the original

Personally, when I want to write a retelling, it's usually because I want to deconstruct the story, pick it apart, and put it back together to see how the elements of the story change and can piece back together in different ways. I enjoy retellings that borrow the same principles of the original, but tell a new story! I think that's why I unironically find Ever After High to be one of the more compelling retellings out there, because it's essentially this huge meta story about how some characters wish to defy the original narrative structure they're presented with, while others want to preserve it, so it's almost like they're the different types of retellings fighting against one another.

I think if you want to make sure that your retelling is different from the original story, you'll want to look at your story consequentially. What happens if the prince isn't Sleeping Beauty's true love's kiss? What happens if the evil fairy starts to care for Sleeping Beauty? What happens if Little Red Riding Hood is the big bad wolf? What happens if you put Little Red Riding Hood in a modern setting, how would that affect the narrative? What happens if you put Cinderella in a realistic setting with no magic, how would that change the glass slipper's role in the story? What's forcing Cinderella to leave at midnight if there's no magic? I think a lot of (particularly YA) retellings fall into the trap of changing things here and there without considering why they're making those changes or how those changes organically impact the story, and that's when a retelling can either feel a bit stale or difficult to distinguish from the original (Disney's Beauty and the Beast 2017 remake is a great example of this). I think a lot of Disney's live action remakes fall into this trap in general (as they are technically adaptations of Disney's retellings of Grimm).

Very sorry for the lengthy answer! I just wanted to make sure that I really explained my process, and I find that picking apart other media/retellings and gauging why I enjoy them and what makes something a compelling retelling is a good way to figure out how I wanna go about writing my own retellings! As long as you borrow the principle elements of a story, you can really do just about anything with them and create something very unique and different that can offer a different perspective of the original (an example being that I've always found the Nutcracker to be a somewhat tragic story, seeing as it's about a man who's been turned into a decorative toy which gives a lot of room to explore one's own humanity and what it means to be human, and that's something I wanted to explore in my own retelling, since that's more or less absent from the original). Figuring out why you enjoy a certain story and expanding upon that or reconstructing the story to highlight that aspect is a great way to take a story and make it your own! I hope this answered your question! And if it didn't, don't be afraid to let me know! ^^;

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

I'm quite curious on your take on Crowley being twisted from the Evil Queen or Maleficient's raven. From the beta Crowley designs he really leaned more towards being Maleficient's— his name iirc was supposed to be Diablo too?

In the final game I feel like leans more as the evil queen's raven. Examples being in the opening there's a quick flash of Crowley in what appears to be the iconic peacock chair on Pomefiore, the damned hawaiian apple shirt, him specifically mentioning how the Evil Queen's statue was defiled in Halloween event, and how he cares for the Apple trees.

(Maybe I'm just looking too deep into it though 🤡 It could just be the fact that Snow white is one of Disney's oldest movie. )

Personally, I think it’s possible that Crowley can represent both birds at the same time! He doesn’t necessarily need to take inspiration specifically from only a single one.

 A few other characters in the TWST cast also have ambiguous inspirations (for example, Silver; is he meant to be the sword that slays Maleficent? Is he supposed to be twisted Aurora? He has elements of both. What about Rook? Yes, his concept is clearly based on the huntsman, but it can also be argued that he also has elements of the magic mirror, as he is Vil’s “hype man”, just as the magic mirror affirms the Evil Queen’s own vanity), so I don’t see why Crowley can’t also be ambiguous. Like you said, there’s plenty of evidence for both schools of thought (Maleficent’s bird vs the Evil Queen’s bird). There’s truth to them both.

If Crowley does end up being the “big bad” of TWST (as many fan theories say), I think he’ll probably lean towards more of the Maleficent’s bird angle 🤔 just because I remember Maleficent’s bird being more helpful and overtly evil like its master than the Evil Queen’s bird was. (That, and Malleus, not Vil, is likely going to be the final dorm leader Overblot, so if we’re going by the order that the main story presents them in, Crowley’s more likely to get involved with the last one in the sequence.)

[bi-dykes]

My favourite super specific tropes:

When a likeable morally grey character does something hurtful to another character and the exact same thing happens to them via karma, the reader/watcher will feel sorry for them but still understand that it was necessary. Bonus points if the action is done but the victim or foil of the morally grey character. Example: I’m Elsa’s biggest fan but I loved it when she too turned into an ice statue

The “oh shit” moment when two character who previously didn’t get along realize they may have feelings for each other. Example: Amity Blight’s face turning red after leaving the library with Luz Noceda

When a character says something really powerful and the background music just stops. Example: “And I... am... Iron Man.”

When a villain is telling the hero that they “need them”, “we’re the same you see”, “you’re just as bad as me” or something along the lines and the hero responds with “no. I’ll never be a bad as you/I don’t need you/we’re not the same.” Examples: Carol Danvers and Yon-Rogg, Batman and Joker

When a character that survived hardships gives a relieved smile at the end of their journey. Example: Moana of Motinui taking a deep breath at the end of the voyage.

A character reclaiming a once nasty nickname now in a sweeter light. Example: Maleficent saying “Hello, Beastie,” to Aurora.

A character getting the opportunity to hurt others or fall back into their former selves, and get tempted but decide no, they’re better than that. Example: Harley Quinn deciding to not go back to the Joker after getting a chance to do so in the animated HQ series

[lovee-infected]

Hello Geo-san, just read your post on Malleus's birthday. It says that his only relative is his grandmother and she still rules the Valley of Thorns. There are theories that his grandmother is none other than Maleficent herself. If that's the case, there are two options here, either she survived her encounter with Prince Phillip or the TW timeline is following the 2014 film. Where she's still alive and ruling the Moors, maybe renamed as the Valley, alongside with Aurora. We'll just wait and see.

I've actually been thinking about this myself, that was much of a shoking reveal!

Aside from revealing the fact that Malleus's parents are dead, this somehow dropped a bomb on "Maleficent being Malleus's grandmother theory"

The main discussion going over the fandom regarding the topic is whether his grandmother is Maleficent or not, which is a really important question!

As someone who strongly supported this theory before this reveal, I can't say I wouldn't be disappointed if Maleficent isn't actually his grandmother, but on the other hand, the possibility of her being Maleficent and still alive would face some strong contradictions in the story:

First off, let's flash back to where this theory begun in the first place:

In Malleus's personal chats, we can find Sebek complimenting Malleus's performance after the classes, telling him that he'd even surpass the witch of thorns herself one day!

Malleus immediately objects to it, saying his powers barely come close to his grandmother's.

Well, to think that they were actually talking about Maleficent but all of a sudden Malleus mentioned his grandmother instead, left us qith a great possibility of him being Maleficent's grandson, to the point that many, including me, considered this theory as canon! But now I highly doubt this theory, even though I wanted it to be confirmed true so much. But since we have more information to seriously discuss the matter right now, here are my thoughts whether this theory is still acceptable or not, which is mainly explaining what would happen if they're actually using the 2014 and 2019 live action movies as a reference:

1) Maleficent being alive would totally WRECK Silver's character development and design!

Come to think of it, there would be no Silver if Maleficent is still alive! Silver's twisted logo is the sword, and the one and only famous sword in the sleeping beauty classic AND the live action movie is the one which slayed Maleficent.

So... If Maleficent's still alive -> There hasn't ever been a sword which slayed her -> Silver doesn't have any special or specific symbol/ character which he is twisted from!

While his name might have something to do with the live action version, where they strongly used Silver to defeat Maleficent, it can also be referring to the fact that dark fairies would immediately be wounded if touched with Silver, which is most likely because of Yana's studies in the fae mythology field (Like how she chose ice cream as Malleus's favorite food since fairies love cream) which isn't necessarily bound to the live action version. But since the sword is Silver's most important role in the game, we can't really stick with the live action version because not only didn't we have any special swords in the live action version, but there also would be a big confusion if there hasn't ever been a sword which slayed Maleficent and Silver is twisted from!

In summary, I'd be honest and say this out loud: Maleficent HAS TO be dead because we need the Silver sword to exist somewhere in the story!!!

2) History of 'Classic Maleficent' vs 'Live action Maleficent'

one of the main points which needs to be considered in this matter, is how different Classic Maleficent and Live action Maleficent are. Maleficent is the very first Disney live action to present a totally different face of a well-known Disney villain such as Maleficent, which also led to a considerable growth in both "Maleficent" and the classic version of "sleeping beauty"'s popularity at the same time! But while 2014's Maleficent was an absolutely amazing movie (to at least) and nearly turned Maleficent into the most beloved villain of Disney's history, the live action (especially the 2019 version) received some strict critiques regarding how they pictured Maleficent: Many of the fans were familiar and attached to the original Maleficent, the mistress of all evil who had control over the powers of hell itself. A REAL villain and an absolutely perfect one. But the live action Maleficent wasn't meant to be a villain, the live action narrated a totally different story from what the classic was.

Though it didn't really lessen the movie's popularity, there were fans who begun to dislike this version of Maleficent after the 2019 version and their reason for disliking the movie actually made sense, the live action went TOO FAR with creating a second Maleficent, almost to the point of not being anything similar to the original, that strong villainous sense they were expecting to see in Maleficent had disappeared.

Now let's talk about twst, what is twst about? Villains. It's basically the world of villains. We need that evil, menacing and demonic sense of villains to be brought back to life through this twisted vessels, as it's confirmed that this school's students have villainous souls. From the Heartslabyul chapter till now, the Pomefiore chapter, his is all we've dealt with: Absolute villains. Each chapter is about a dorm leader (expect for Kalim) discovering and revealing their villainous spirits, which leads to an overblot. They want them to see just as evil and reckless as the original villains, which is why they put them into a mode such as overblot, where they're controlled by a puppet in the shape of one of the great seven.

Is such a story, where they need to make each of the main characters be as evil as possible, choosing live action Maleficent (who is a half villain, half hero character) not only is debatable but ia also a big contract to the previous chapters as they all followed the original villains' stories!

I guess we can all agree that Diasomnia's quite special compared to the rest of the dorms, but going as far as using a different source in character development and plot design compared to the rest of the characters and dorms seems to be a bit too much- I don't think Diasomnia's design and development is planned to be THAT different.

3) Key points about fhat has been officially mentioned in twst

Personal chats are VERY important to go through while doing a character analysis, they're such a wealthy and perfect source of information regarding each and every of the characters!

As for Diasomnia, each and every of the members mentioned something about the witch of thorns and her background, which directly leads us to how and who is the twst's Maleficent:

Lilia: Explains how Maleficent's Chronicles spent 16 years looking for a baby in a cradle -> This only happened in the classic! Live action Maleficent never sent any of her minions to look after aurora as she never had any!

Silver: Explains how the King of a well-known kingdom forgot to invite Maleficent and offended her with this, he wonders what kind of King would ever do such a disrespectful thing? -> Original Maleficent was offended and mad just because she wasn't invited, while the Live action Maleficent was betrayed by the King Stephan, Aurora's father who intentionally refused to invite Maleficent. Keep this in mind that Silver said forgetting to invite her, which is exactly what happened in the classic and King and Queen seriously forgot to invite Maleficent, not to intentionally avoid and decide to keep her away from baby Aurora like what happened in the live action.

Malleus: In his chats with Lilia, he mentions how The witch of thorns once invited the prince of as enemy Kingdom into her own castle -> This is again, something which only happened in the classic, referring to the scene where Maleficent captured prince Philip and imprisoned him inside her castle. Live action Maleficent didn't even have a castle to begin with, note that all she did was to take Phillip to Stephan's castle to give Aurora a chance to live.

Malleus: He explains how The Witch of thorns could turn into a dragon -> Live action Maleficent never turned into a dragon, she just once turned her crow, diaval, into a dragon (2014 ver.) and turned into a phoenix (2019 ver.). The only Maleficent which could and did transform into a dragon is the one we know from the sleeping beauty classic.

Hitting with the lighting: This is something Malleus is capable of doing, he both did this to Sebek back in the manga anthology and threatened Rook with it -> Again, this is something which the original Maleficent and herself only could do.

There are quite a few of other orginal Maleficent references you can find if you carefully go through the story and voice lines, but I'm not going to mention each and every of them because I believe I've already discussed this enough. Note that while there are tens of original Maleficent references in the story, there hasn't been anything mentioned about the live action Malleus so far expect for fan content and stuff.

Obviously, they're using Original Maleficent as the main reference. The question is whether they're using the live action too as a reference or not.

4) A summary + Existing debates

Aside from all of the current theories and headcanons, I guess this is all we can tell about the canon information revealed so far. But before we end, I'd like to add a few of small notes:

Lilia has never referred to the Witch of thorns as Queen of thorns, it's not quite specific to tell but it seems like Queen of thorns and Witch of thorns are indeed to different people.

But then again, why does Malleus bring his grandmother up in the middle of a discussion about Witch of thorns? Could it be that he just used her mother as an example since her too, is a very powerful magician but not exactly the witch of thorns herself, or...??

There hasn't been any information revealed regarding the great seven's current position in twisted wonderland's history, how long ago has their stories taken place? Could it be that some of them are still alive? Did their stories end just the same as orginal stories or did they decide to twist the endings as well?

The main reason why I think Maleficent cannot be alive now is not becuase she died in the original story, it's becuase of Silver, which has already been explained in part (1)!

At last, I'd like to add a final note to this piece: Even if the "Grandmother Maleficent" theory turns out to be wrong, many of the fans are already enjoying the eixisting fanon twst content which are using the live action as a reference! The most popular reference is probably with Malleus's back, where many artists decide to add two wounds on as a reference to what happened to Maleficent's wings in the live action. This is personally one of my FAVORITES and I just love it when artists draw the wounds, though the possibility of Malleus actually having wings is pretty low! We can almost call it impossible lol. The thing is, from how the story has gone so far we can assume that they aren't going to use the live action at all, but if they do, that'll be quite amazing and interesting to discuss!!

[thebrownssociety]

what’s the sibling dynamic between buster and elmyra? since elmer and bugs are married in and the looney tunes cast adopted the tiny toons cast

Thanks for the ask! Sorry it's taken so long, I was trying to tie all the threads together.

So, I'm going to include Babs in this as well, as I headcanon Bugs and Elmer adopted Buster, Babs and Elmyra together.

So to understand this we've got to go back to after Tiny Toons had finished filming in early 1992. By that point the kids were all 5 years old and had basically formed a tight-knit group. They were also at the stage in there development when they were starting to expand a little bit beyond what their official characterisation was.

So, take Montanna Max, for example, although he was still hot-headed, obsessed with money and greedy [and those traits would never go away] he was now learning that his friends [and particularly the adults] weren't going to put up with his screaming at them all day and not sharing anything and that if he wanted to remain friends with them he was going to have to change his behaviour at least a little. The rest of the toons would accept what he was created as, but they wouldn't accept him using that as an excuse to act completely out of order.

Buster and Babs upon finishing filming were both enrolled in a two-year long course which was basically going to help them adjust to not being a protagonist anymore. It's a course that every protagonist of a TV show, or a film, does after the completion of there first show, and it basically helps them come to terms with the fact they are not the centre of the universe. The reason for this is because it's been accepted and realised that it's very hard for a toon who's had there entire show revolve around them to suddenly not have that anymore and be sent out into the world of Toons where most Toons don't care.

As a genreral rule in Toontown, unless you've achieved the fame levels of Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse, or are associated with them, no one really cares what film you were in. So Anna and Elsa are treated like goddesses in Toontown because, there film was really successful and they're seen as really good characters, contrast that with Princess Aurora [who's film was a box-office bomb at time of release, I believe] who is more respected and liked because she's royalty and she's really nice than because her film was successful.

In short, unless your film is massively successful at time of release, you're just another toon and the two-year course helps protagonists come to terms with that. There are positives as well, it's not all 'you're nothing now'. The toons work on their individual skills and how they may be transferred to other things. [Babs's impression are so good, for instance, that even if Tiny Toons never got rebooted, she'd still have a really good shot at becoming a Toon Impressionist, if she wanted to. Buster's flexibility and ability to 'read' other people means he'd potentially be good as a nurse/doctor/police officer or just a role that's with the public.]

While Buster and Babs were doing that Elmyra spent time with Bugs and Elmer and practiced her toon powers while benefiting from the individual attention being given by her dads. [Just a note, there is a two-year course for villains as well that was introduced in the 60's that helps them to...not be so villainous, but you have to meet a certain level of 'badness' like Maleficent OR Evil Queen to get in there and - obviously - Elmyra doesn't meet that requirement.]

So, back to the actual ask, Buster, Babs and Elmyra moved into Bugs and Elmer's 5-bedroom mansion shortly after filming ended. It was decided they would each have there own room, which they decorated to there own preferences [Elmyra's is very VERY pink]. So this relieved some tension, because Babs HATED the idea of sharing a room with Elmyra. [Elmyra, for her part, was happy about the idea and cried buckets when she was told it wouldn't be happening.]

At first Buster didn't really get on well with Elmyra at all. Over filming he'd kind of managed to build her up into the 'oh, help me, it's Elmyra' figure, and although he knew she was largely harmless, he still didn't like her. Her 'baby-act' and need to be constantly supervised also grated. This was the same for Babs.

Elmyra, at first, adored the idea of living with Babs and Buster and had visions of dressing them up all day in 'cutesey-wutesey outfits'. It may surprise you to know, that Buster and Babs did not WANT to be dressed up in outfits, cute or otherwise, and had no issue anvilling her to get the point across. This led to tears on Elmyra's part and frustration on Babs and Buster's.

This did eventually mellow out though, due to a couple of things, firstly - Bugs and Elmer's determination to teach Elmyra how to handle her new brother and sister properly [and vice versa for the bunny's]. Secondly - because Elmyra did have regular session with Doctor Scratchensniff every week during which they worked on 'how not to strangle animals when you hug them.' among other things and thirdly because Buster and Babs realised things where not all sunny for Elmyra.

That sounds really ominous, but what I may is that a few of you may have remembered that Elmyra actually had a family when she was on the show. A physical one, not just 'mentioned' parents like Buster. [Babs had a mother who was shown, but Babs's mother is a sufficiently flat characters, that if she doesn't have Babs in the house she assumes she's at school. It doesn't matter whether it's snowing, the middle of the school holidays or the middle of the night, as far as 'Mrs Bunny' is concerned, Babs is at school.]

It was decided after Tiny Toons ended that Elmyra should continue to see her 'designed' family [the family she was designed to have] at the weekends. Friday afternoon she walked home/would be dropped off by someone at her designed parents house and she would stay there until Sunday night until she was returned just after dinner. [So Elmyra would miss dinner with Bugs and co]

This worked for a little while until it got to when Elmyra was going into Grade 1 and Elmer realised she was always doing her homework when she got home. Her parents weren't helping her. In a rather tense conversation he asked Elmyra's designed parents if they would help her do her homework. They promptly replied that the homework was to difficult for 'there little baby' and she should be given something age-appropriate. It was during that discussion that Elmer discovered her 'parents' thought she was 4 years old.

Even by Toon standards, this was a warning flag and Elmer promptly excused himself and ran the conversation by Doctor Scratchensniff because the fact Elmyra's parents didn't seem to recognise the fact that A} her designed age was 12 and B} she was actually 6, not 4 - was concerning to say the least.

Now. Normally D.S. doesn't get involved with this kind of thing because otherwise he'd never do anything else, but as Elmyra was already a patient of his and he decided it wouldn't do Elmer/Bugs any good if they challenged Elmyra's parents themselves, he decided he better have a word with them herself.

He had his word. And they seemed to understand. Scratchy went back to Bugs and Elmer and told them they didn't have to worry, that Elmyra's parents understood her designed age was 12 and that she would get older and mature above that [hopefully]. Bugs and Elmer [particularly Elmer] were suspicious about this at first, but Elmyra came back from her parents having had her homework done and with tales of having done exciting things during the weekend. She was also - they noticed - being given age-appropriate things to play with and this lasted...until she moved up to middle school.

Elmyra moved up to middle school a year after Buster and Babs did, which meant they weren't in the same class. However they were in the same house and it became noticeable that Elmyra didn't seem very happy. Specifically she didn't seem very happy with the idea of going to her parents house at the weekend and was somehow even less happy when she came back.

Bugs and Elmer had noticed this and tried to ask her what was wrong, but she refused to tell them. Buster didn't really want to get involved - he felt it would open a long, emotional conversation he didn't really want to have - but when Elmyra came home one day in tears and he was the only one in the house it fell to him to deal with it.

Turns out Elmyra's parents did not like the fact she was in middle school. They thought the schoolwork she was doing was to advanced for her [it was perfectly acceptable work for her grade and she was doing well with it] and her mother in particular was concerned because Elmyra had started Noticing Boys. This did not fit with the notion they had that she was still a little girl who spoke in a babyish voice and called everything 'cuddly-wuddly' despite the fact that Elmyra herself was doing her best to drop the 'cuddly-wudddly's' [unfortunately she still had to keep the babyish voice] and asking that her parents maybe not buy her games and stuff that were clearly designed for a child under 10.

By this point all this had been going on for a few months. Buster - after calming Elmyra down and running the situation by Hampton - told there dads what was going on with Elmyra and they took matters out of his hands.

Doctor Scratchensniff paid another visit to Elmyra's parents with the intention of explaining to them, gently and tactfully, why they needed to change the way they were treating Elmyra because it was risking damaging her and no one has a clue what was actually said in that meeting, but the end shot was that Elmyra no longer saw her parents on the weekend. She could contact them again at 16 if she wanted to, but until then it was in her best interests to stay away from them.

You all may be wondering why I'm going into so much detail about Elmyra's circumstances, and that's because I feel it's necessary to understand the siblings dynamic. Buster, Babs and Elmyra - up until they were about 11 - only spent Mon-Thurs as a proper group. During that time they anvilled each other, teased each other and tried to actively avoid each other [or rather Buster and Babs tried to actively avoid Elmyra when she was at her most annoying] They also played games together, struggled through school-work together and dealt with there annoying parents together. They became a pretty effective sibling team.

Buster and Babs - despite being created to have a crush on each other - came to view each other as adopted siblings and remained close. They laughed together, joke together and messed with people together.

Babs and Elmyra go shopping together, they talk about stuff together - 'stuff' being the subjects of romances and Life in general that perhaps Buster wouldn't want to be a part off - they get on pretty well actually, mainly because they have a good few things in common and on Elmyra's sensible non-complete-moron days they can even have deep conversations about politics and the world in general as well as analysing TV shows and fangirling over there favourite characters.

Buster and Elmyra are a bit of an odd paring. On Elmyra's smart days the two of them can be quite devious and can throw adults for a loop easily. On her less smart days Buster just tries to stay out her way. The things with Buster and Elmyra is that he basically thought of her as an annoyance for the first 5 years off his life. When he was adopted by Bugs and Elmer and found himself now living with her he was essentially banned from insulting her to harshly. ["No anvilling at the dinner table, Buster!"] But part the issue was that Buster was jealous because Elmyra had another family she got too see and he didn't. He knew that Bugs and Elmer were his official family and it was great to be adopted by his mentor but he couldn't help a pang of envy every time Elmyra got in the car to go to her parents house.

And then the breakdown happened with Elmyra when she was 11 [Buster and Babs knew her parents had had a few problems with her before, but didn't know the exact details, To be fair not even Elmyra herself knew the exact details. Elmer had the conversation away from her and then the rest of it was kept away from her. The only thing she was told was that her parents would now be helping her with homework when she went to them at the weekend.] and Buster realised that Elmyra's home life was not a bed of roses and he made a conscious effort to not be so short with her and to be more patient in the way that Babs seems to be able to do effortlessly. [Babs's realised pretty quickly after they all started living together that Elmyra wasn't going to change and decided that rather than fight it she was just going to embrace it. She was hoping that Elmyra would go away after Babs played 'dress-up' with her, but it just made Elmyra like her more. After a couple of months - and a conversation with Bugs - Babs realised that Elmyra literally just wanted someone to spend time with and dress up. But it was more the spending time than the dressing up that Elmyra liked. They managed to work out a system where Babs would let Elmyra dress her up and do her ears, if Elmyra would give feedback on Babs's impressions and watch comedy tapes with her.]

Going back to Buster, it took a while and, while he and Elmyra are never going to be 'best friends', Buster eventually realised she wasn't that bad and started to enjoy spending time with her.

Elmyra, for her part, has made a conscious effort over the years to not hug her siblings [or any other cute, fluffy creatures for that matter] to tightly, dress them up against their will, or chase them round the earth till they just give up. She still hugs and does like going shopping [or 'grown-up dress up' as Babs calls it] and will chase them to give them a hug if she's having a particularly stupid day or thinks they look upset, but the main thing is that Elmyra is trying.

Very very trying.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

excuse me while I go a little soundtrack nerdy, BUT:

there’s a thing in music called a leitmotif, which is using a melody or an instrument to represent a character or an idea (here’s a cool video explaining how it works in the black panther soundtrack, which incidentally is the best fucking soundtrack of all time and you can fight me on that). 

making sure that all the leitmotifs work together, and then doing riffs on those leitmotifs to convey different ideas (for example, playing character A’s melody in character B’s instrument to represent B taking up A’s mantle), while also making sure that the music being written works with what’s portrayed onscreen, is really fucking hard to do, and tbh a lot of soundtrack composers don’t do it. 

(or, worse, the first movie puts effort into it, and then that gets ignored by the soundtrack composers for subsequent sequels, I’m talking to you specifically, brian tyler) (mark mothersbaugh, you have the excuse of having a tonally different film and you included the theme from the first movie, so you can stay)

what more often happens is that the music is... flavoring? like, you need the scene to be scary here, so you make scary music. you need it to be romantic, so you make romantic music. this isn’t bad, necessarily, it’s just not quite as much effort.

maleficent: mistress of evil’s soundtrack did a really cool thing: it kept bits from the first soundtrack, then riffed on them to represent new musical ideas. 

so! for example! the first film has this melody playing over the scene of kid!maleficent flying over the moors. let’s call this “the happy moors leitmotif.” and we see it again at the start of the second film, showing that the moors have returned to their former state and are no longer oppressed or fearful.

but it gets more complex! in the first film, maleficent taking over the moors is backed with this creepy march. (it also gets a quick revisit when maleficent shows up to the christening.) let’s call this “the anger leitmotif.” and there’s a different leitmotif, which gets played whenever aurora’s curse comes up: it’s played over maleficent casting the curse, and it comes up again when aurora is getting magically lead to prick her finger later in the movie. let’s call this “the curse leitmotif.”

so what happens in M:MOE? maleficent is at an awkward dinner with phillip’s parents, and queen ingrith in particular keeps making backhanded comments about how aurora is going to be her daughter and how she’ll have a real mother now. maleficent loses her temper and magically lashes out, which causes the waiting guards to attack her, so she fights back. then king john collapses, and ingrith cries out that it must be a curse.

and what plays over that scene? the anger leitmotif, that segues into the curse leitmotif (which also foreshadows the fact that it’s specifically aurora’s curse that’s affecting him and not just any old curse).

EVEN MORE COMPLEX! there’s a really cool piano melody in the first movie that’s played when maleficent sees the grown-up aurora from afar and says “I wonder,” apparently deciding right then to allow aurora into the moors. M:MOE plays that piano line over the scene where aurora is feeling conflicted about fitting in with the ulstead court and how she treated maleficent. in the first movie, the solo marks the start of maleficent developing feelings for aurora; in the second, it’s aurora reminding herself of her feelings for maleficent.

(btw, a time when reusing the leitmotifs did not work: blaring the anger motif during the opening credits and interrupting the happy moors theme that plays before and after it. it’s discordant, makes no sense with the emotions that scene is trying to convey, and sounds like a dramatic scare chord).

ANYWAY, tl;dr: M:MOE actually acknowledged its predecessor’s score and worked it in a way that fit the new movie and kept cool bits from the old, also I lied, I am a LOT soundtrack nerdy.

[bunny-lou]

(for your dvd commentary) There's a pain in Mal's chest. Maleficent hadn't been exaggerating when she said friendships were a weakness. This is awful. And enlightening. If this nauseating ache is what Phillip had felt when he first saw her, Mal kind of understands why he reacted the way he did. She wants to stand up and punch Roger's teeth out and the man hadn't said anything to her.

Yesss, send me every scene from Grin and Bear It!

I don’t know if I didn’t make this clear or if people didn’t understand because I’ve had a couple of questions on it, so just to clear it up!: the VKs originally went to Auradon to steal the wand, but changed their plan to bring over more Isle kids and get them all away from their parents. They never stole the wand, they behaved at the coronation, they never specifically choose good over evil, but the VKs choose the Isle kids over the villains.

Which is basically choosing ‘good’ because it’s selfless and helpful, but the VKs haven’t made that distinction quiet yet. Mal is much more concerned with being a proper leader than she is with being evil, but she hasn’t pledged herself to either side.

Mal has distanced herself from becoming Maleficent, but she is still attached to Maleficent herself. She admires her mother’s power and strength and still holds belief in that friendships are a weakness since she still aspires to be Maleficent on some level. However, this is another example of Mal choosing to be a proper leader rather than be evil. She cares too much for her friends to give up on them, especially now that Carlos, Jay and Evie are all she has in Auradon.

I really like this scene because it helps the adults seem more human to the VKs, or at least to Mal. It helps her forgive Phillip and Aurora (and Jasmine) later on because she sees where the adults are coming from now. Mal hates Roger even through he didn’t do or say anything to her, she cares for Carlos enough to want to defend and protect him, she wants to put herself between him and his fear. Similarly, Phillip and Aurora fear Mal even though she hasn’t done anything to them. They care for each other and the kingdom enough to want to defend and protect the people and want to prevent any threat before it happens. This will be discussed more in the sequel, but Mal understand the motivation of the adults now.

Thanks for asking!

Send me 500 words of anything I’ve written and I’ll give you the ‘DVD Commentary’ of that scene!

[loracarol]

I may or may not do a Proper Review of the Twisted Tales series at a later date, but here’s my brief summary/review of the first three. This WILL contain spoilers. 

Also @fantastic-nonsense​, have you heard of/read any of these? I know that fairy tales are kind of your jam. :V

A Whole New World

Easily my favorite of the three by far

Really leans in to the whole “the same Disney Movie You Know but with One Twist” thing they claim to have going on

Jafar gets the lamp

And that’s where it all goes to shit

Everything builds off of this one singular change in the timeline - while things are built up/expanded in the past, frankly it’s nothing that goes against the actual movie. 

For example, the King being little more then a man-child ignoring the problems in his city. Not specifically mentioned in the movie but given the King’s personality/the slums we see, it’s not out of the realm of possibility. 

Building on Aladdin’s past friendships - again, not something we actually see in movie, but not necessarily ooc either.

Also Jafar kills the Sultan, uses magic to raise the dead (the genie can’t do it, but Jafar uses his newfound power to look for a way around that.) 

BUT YEAH there are zombies all of a sudden, including children. 

This book was baller, 10/10 would recommend, even if just for the Holy Shit What The Fuck-ness of it.  

Once Upon A Dream

Middle of the pack IMO. 

I don’t actually have anything against the idea of the plot.

Aurora is highly different from her movie counterpart. It’s not necessarily bad IMO, but it was Distracting. 

Aurora and Philip were cute, though. 

Aurora’s parent’s get killed before she gets a chance to meet them. :( 

But then?? She/the plot seems to agree with Maleficent that it was all their fault for sending their child away?? 

And, of course, ~Maleficent~ wouldn’t ever do something like that

Ignoring for the moment that they sent her away because Maleficent had put a curse on a fucking baby that was supposed to kill her 

and it was only because another fairy intervened that she didn’t die

Maleficent, you don’t get to police how other people deal with that shit when it’s your fault  they have to deal with it

And also you killed them and it’s your fault Aurora never got to meet her parents. 

I was worried they were going to pull a Maleficent at the beginning with the framing device that Maleficent was the good guy and the three good fairies/the King and Queen were the bad guy, but the twist was nice

Not my fav, and while I did laugh out loud at some parts, I ended up feeling like I was reading about two OC’s who’d snuck into the plot rather then the Disney versions of the characters. 

This was especially annoying bc the part where the book “twisted” the tale was around Aurora pricking her finger/Maleficent dying - aka the end of the friggen movie.  

6/10 wouldn’t recommend but wouldn’t anti-recommend either. 

As Old As Time

This book was very... Yikes

Yikes Yikes Yikes

Okay, maybe I’m overthinking this - I’m not actually Jewish, but it felt like this book appropriated/exploited a lot of Jewish historical suffering? 

This one is under a cut bc potential antisemitism

Twist is that Belle’s mother was the Enchantress, but honestly, that didn’t feel like enough of a twist to justify everything that happens in the book

Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a kingdom. This kingdom had many people within it’s borders, including a number of Jewish people magical folk. Belle’s mother is one of those Jewish people magical folk, only she’s a good Jew magical person with her “Aryan” looks blonde hair and light eyes (tbh I can’t remember if they were green or blue). 

Among Maurice’s companions include a man who hates his Jewish heritage magical abilities and thinks of magic as unnecessary/evil. 

Belle’s mother settles down with Maurice and has a baby with him, but things are starting to go poorly for the Jewish magical people. A plague arrives and the magical people (you get the point so I’m going to stop now) are blamed for it. Belle’s mom goes to the castle to try and bargain for help and because she is a Good Magical Person she casts a spell of protection on all of the children in the castle. 

Meanwhile, magical folk are disappearing, but no one knows where to. To combat this, a series of people - including Mr. Potts - run a smuggling ring to get magical people out of the country. This is Important as things are continuing to go Wrong and the magical people are being blamed for all the countries ills. 

In the end, the bad guy is the man who hated his magical abilities. He’s also Monsieur D’Arque - the asylum owner. He experimented on his brain (like, actual brain surgery) to get rid of his powers, and he’s been kidnapping and torturing magical beings since in order to try and figure out how to destroy all magical beings. Let me be clear, he is pretty much a Disney Fanfic Version of Josef Mengele. His experiments were horrible. Belle’s mom was one of those taken*, and she was tortured so badly... It’s horrifying, reading the description. 

*As one of her last spells, she had removed everyone’s memories of her connection to Belle & Maurice to protect them, and that’s why D’Arque didn’t go after them at first. 

There are other things, too, little bits here and there that really made me feel uncomfortable, like the book was appropriating this historical persecution of Jewish people for it’s own ends, but again, I’m not Jewish, and therefore not qualified to make A Statement on Antisemitism. I’m just noting the things I noticed.

That’s my Number One Big Problem with the book, and why I’d probably give it 1/5 stars, if that. That being said, that wasn’t my only problem with the book. The thing is, it wasn’t a good book that used unfortunate metaphors, it just felt like really really really bad fanfic on top of that. I don’t mention the following because I think they’re equal to what I noted above, I mention the following because these were other things that really annoyed me, and I wanted to rant about it:

Who the fuck are you, and what have you done with the beast? 

You know how, in the movie, when the Beast knows that Belle is a chance to break the curse, and he still is an angry asshole to her even though realistically being kind would be more likely to cause her to fall in love with him & to break the spell.  

Yeah, forget all that. 

Belle touches the rose, learns about the curse, remembers her mother, and knows that she’s unlikely to fall in love with him now that she knows she “has” to.

The Beast, in return, turns into Bad!Fanfic!Draco/Zuko. You know, the kinds that show up in bad Dramaione/Zutara fics. (I’m not saying they’re all bad, but come on, you know what I mean when I refer to Bad Versions Of Those Fics. 

You know the archetype. 

Despite finding out that he may be Cursed Forever he puts on a tablecloth like an apron and helps Belle cook. 

................................Yeah. 

I read a Miraculous Ladybug fanfic that was Beauty and the Beast and something similar-ish occurred, but there it made sense. There it was in-character. 

Also there’s a scene where the Beast is literally groveling on his hands and knees to get Gaston’s help.

Do you see what I mean about “bad fanfic”? 

Anticlimax

The whole mob @ the asylum ends because LeFou recognizes his aunt (?) as one of the patients and that’s pretty much all it takes to turn people’s minds around. Maybe this could have worked with better set-up (LeFou’s POV book?) but... Yeah............

Anticlimactic Gaston

You know all that power he had over people in the village? How he was so well-liked he had his own theme song? How he was able to get everyone to set up a wedding in like... A day? How he had girls swooning over him? How the tavern was his house of worship? How he was able to get a mob going to attack a Dangerous Beast by sheer virtue of Who He Was in the village? How it took him plunging to his death to stop his cruelty? 

Yeah, there’s none of that in this book. 

People start recognizing the people in the asylum, and that’s just... It. They don’t turn on him, but they do turn away from him, and he just kind of... Takes it. It’s like they gave canon!Gaston valium. Why wasn’t he angry when he lost control? Why didn’t he rage when people betrayed him? Those are canon actions even before Belle meets the Beast! It just doesn’t make any sense that he’d just lie down and take it. 

And the Furries Rejoiced 

Belle doesn’t break the curse, but her mother has enough power to break part of it. The Beast somehow Stops Losing His Humanity because Luv (??) but that’s not enough to actually break the curse. The Beast asks the enchantress to break the curse on his people instead, and she does, leaving the Beast totally fine with being trapped in an alien, monstrous body. There is hope - if they can gather other fairy tale creatures to his palace*, they might be able to band together to break it. And like, I get it. People seem to have a hard on for the beastly form, but the book totally glosses over his canonical frustration with his inhuman form. See again, the cooking, and turning into LeatherPants!Draco/Zuko. It’s frustrating - again, that’s something that could have genuinely be fascinating, but it just felt like a cop-out so that the book could end with him still a furry. 

Like, do that if you want, but actually make it a consequence with some emotion behind it rather then just being kind of... Meh.   

* His palace was magically hidden & that part of the curse didn’t break meaning that it has the potential to become a haven for persecuted magical beings.

[angstbotfic]

moonlight91 wants her other three examples disproved? Sure thing. 1. Yes Elsa ran away. For two reasons: She's scared the people will attack her for her magic and because she's afraid of what HER magic is capable of doing to THEM. That witless summary of the moral of Frozen is based on the first 20 minutes of the movie. This person might be surprised to learn that the story continues. Elsa's entire arc culminates with her returning to her kingdom. She stops fighting at her ice palace (1/7)

(2/7) even with armed soldiers around her because she didn't want to be a monster. When Hans has her locked up she says her reasons for not wanting to be back "I'm a danger to Arandelle." Her arc ends with her not running from her problems and remaining with her sister and her city. Also funny to bash Elsa considering the character with the most screentime is Anna. It's her journey we follow, her story. 2. First off, a definition, matricide - the killing of one's mother. Merida NEVER tries to

(3/7) kill her mother. She specifically asks the witch for "a spell to CHANGE my mother. That'll change my fate." Even at her most upset she didn't want to kill her mother and was distraught when the spell took effect. You can reference the scene in the room when she changes, her task to try and sneak her mother out of the castle so the men won't kill her, the fact that she got in the way of her own father's sword so she wouldn't be hurt, etc. for evidence of that. Now Merida does spend a lot of

(4/7) the movie blaming the witch and her own mother for things that have gone wrong. But again that the POINT. Stories are about journeys. The spell didn't break in the first act of the movie because Merida, and also the mother to some extent, wouldn't acknowledge the real problem. The spell doesn't break until Merida says "I'm sorry. This is all my fault. I did this to you". That's what is knows as taking responsibility. It's character growth. So your point is moot. 3. I'll admit I've only

(5/7) seen this version once. But Maleficent doesn't place everyone she meets under a sleeping curse. She builds a wall of thorns around her kingdom and casts the curse for Aurora but everyone else is conscious in this unlike the cartoon. Stefan drives himself to madness in the intervening years, sending his army to attack the thorn wall, so he certainly wasn't sleeping. Maleficent saves Aurora's life, even as a baby, when she crawls off a cliff when she could have let her die. She didn't even

(6/7) want Aurora cursed after the first two scenes they had together. She tries to stop Aurora from falling to the curse and when she is cursed Maleficent brings the prince to her to break the curse with true love's kiss. Of course it doesn't work and Maleficent breaks it herself with her love. Of course I'm not saying she's a perfect heroine. She was certainly an anti hero, if not a villain, in this portrayal, which is why her story is one of redemption. Learning not to judge Aurora by her dad

(7/7)These characters aren't perfect and you don't have to like them; but they're a hell of a lot better than Emma Swan. They change & grow into better people from the ones we first see. Emma does the opposite. Emma is worse off then when we met her. That's why she's a terrible character to look up to.You can bet your ass that I would rather have stories about women that aren't perfect & have flaws but that learn it's never too late to better yourself. Quit trying to obfuscate the stories morals

lovely Nonnie, that person was not arguing in good faith. she tipped her hand when she tried to diminish the problems with Emma. that was why i didn’t argue with her. 

BUT, this is an awesome essay, and thank you!

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #403

Top Ten Disney Villains

Chalk another one up to “topics I thought I’d already covered”…

So this weekend, or thereabouts, sees the release of Frozen II, which is cool because it uses the “II” instead of the “2”, which makes it seem all moody and epic. At the time of writing, I have not watched it, because I do not believe it is out. However, I will watch it, and not just because I have two little girls who at various points have been utterly nuts for Elsa and Anna. No, I will also watch it because Frozen is rather great and I’m interested to see what happens next. Hopefully Elsa will get a girlfriend. That’d be nice for her.

There are lots of things you could discuss when talking about Disney movies (and by Disney movies I mean specifically the animated “classics”, from Snow White to Wreck-It Ralph, from Cinderella to Moana; I am discounting Pixar movies for the time being, however). There’s the principle characters, the songs, the settings, the dresses… but today I will be discussing The Villains.

What is a Disney movie without a Big Bad? I mean, Winnie the Pooh, I suppose. Arguably Ralph Breaks the Internet. Even more arguably, Moana. Stuff like Dumbo and Pinocchio certainly have bad guys, but not over-arching nemeses. Anyway, where was I?

Yeah, so, Disney Villains. Iconic. Often terrifying. Sometimes hilarious. Kinda sexy? Yeah, sure, why not. They tend to get the best lines; often the best songs; sometimes they’re played with relish and gusto by the best actors. Although some villains sometimes have a bit of nuance, depth, or tragedy to them, most of the time we’re in strict hissing panto territory, and I don’t think that diminishes the films one iota. As our big, broad entertainment enjoys putting wrinkles in its evil linen – be it the fraternal intricacies of Loki or the self-pitying emotional outbursts of Kylo Ren – we do enjoy shades of grey. Therefore it’s all the more entertaining when somebody properly goes for it as a bad guy, and pulls out the Full Palpatine.

I’m not sure, either, quite why Disney excels at female villains. Even when their titular heroines are a bit wet – like Ariel or Aurora – the bad girls are full-throated, evil joys. Ursula and Maleficent are the best bits of those movies, Jamaican crabs notwithstanding. And, yes, they both get to be a bit sexy too. Is it some kind of dark undercurrent of misogyny, of Disney exploring tropes of the fallen woman? Is it something primordial, like a dark inversion of maternity (there are quite a few Wicked Stepmothers in Disney, after all)? Or is it just coz the animators liked drawing sexy bad girls? We’ll never know.

One notable – and unincluded – villain here is Hans, from Frozen (spoiler alert). He just slipped off the list – but then so did quite a few famous others. Hans is interesting because he’s an absolute bastard, conniving and scheming and murdering his way to the top in as sociopathic manner as possible. His heel turn was, for me at least, a surprise, and part of Frozen’s beautiful unpicking of common Disney fairytale tropes. The perfect love-at-first-sight duet partner turns out to be a lying, manipulative toe-rag. Although the film predated the #MeToo movement, Hans is the perfect poster-boy. Whilst his early-days civility and lack of a show-stopping villain theme song means he’s not quite as memorable a character, it’ll be interesting to see if Frozen II pulls off as successful a switcheroo, or has a villain that resonates as strongly with the film’s themes.

But enough of this guff. Let’s get wicked.

Scar (Jeremy Irons, The Lion King, 1994): pretty much the dictionary definition – alongside Alan Rickman in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves – of “upper-class English villainy”. It’s just delightful to listen to him enunciate his wickedness. This is Iago-level bastardry. Oscar-worthy.

Ursula (Pat Carroll, The Little Mermaid, 1989): ditto Ursula, who also brings a delightful, raw sexuality to an otherwise rather chaste movie (especially one that’s so concerned with body transmogrification). Great set of pipes, too.

Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy, Tangled, 2010): less of a sneering monster but more realistic in her purely wicked gaslighting. A case study in belittlement and subtle mental torture. Also another case of “belting villain song”.

Maleficent (Eleanor Audley, Sleeping Beauty, 1959): no real nuance, and sadly no real numbers, but Maleficent gets a nod due to her phenomenal visual design, an epic and iconic dragon battle, and just by being the embodiment of unreal, emotionless evil. A literal devil.

Gaston (Richard White, Beauty and the Beast, 1991): not the sneering evil overlord or psychological manipulator, but an early example of toxic masculinity and patriarchal suppression writ large (the size of a barge, in fact). Swagger, ego, and – horror – popularity, rallying the town behind his hate. Also – again – cracking tune.

Prince John (Peter Ustinov, Robin Hood, 1973): Disney doesn’t just do cold evil with its villains; much of the time they’re funny, too, and Prince John is like Captain Hook in being essentially a bumbling idiot used chiefly for comic relief. But he’s funnier than Hook, and with his thumb-sucking schtick, has a better, er, hook, too.

Professor Ratigan (Vincent Price, Basil the Great Mouse Detective, 1986): full disclosure, I’ve not seen this since I was a kid, but I loved Ratigan. Again, cool song; again, tremendous performance. But he managed to be both aloof and sneery yet utterly, primally terrifying; at the end, with his wild face and ripped clothes, he freaked out Young Me so much. Also one of the few Disney villains to actually flat-out murder someone.

Doctor Facilier (Keith David, The Princess and the Frog, 2009): AKA “The Soul Man”, Facilier is an interesting character that explores cultural roots of the film’s New Orleans setting, giving him a vibe (and, frankly, an ethnicity) that makes him unique. Plus he’s really creepy, with his scary “Friends on the Other Side” (great number), and a frankly unsettling death scene.

Lady Tremaine (Eleanor Audley, Cinderella, 1950): ploughing a similar manipulative furrow as Mother Gothel, Tremaine – the quintessential Wicked Stepmother – is a malicious, quiet presence, rarely shouting, never getting physical; she simply strips away everything of Cinderella’s until she’s left with a torn and tattered dress and no means of escape. She is The System which is all-controlling, and only magic is enough to defeat her.

Jafar (Jonathan Freeman, Aladdin, 1992): similar in his own way to the melodramatic villainy of Scar or Maleficent, Jafar also adds some baser human wants and lust for power. He’s a more physical villain, with some of Scar’s eloquence but more of Gaston’s personal need for growth, success, and – well – a bit of a legover. Doesn’t get a good song till The Return of Jafar, though.

So there we are: top Disney gits. Shame I didn’t have room for Mad Madam Mim from The Sword in the Stone, who was so nearly there, along with Hook and Hans. I did, however, veto supporting villains, henchmen, and second-tier bad guys, if you’re wondering where Smee, Iago, and Tamatoa are. Maybe that’s the subject for another Top Ten? Shiny!

[ganymedesclock]

I like the idea that lighthouse gem is labradorite, but I don't understand the idea that she is half of the Blue Diamond we saw in the answer. She's a different shape entirely, even presented from the side she wouldn't look like that gem. Unless you're alleging blue was a 3 gem fusion?

Just in terms of shape, my thinking is actually there might be something sneaky going on here.

We’ve seen that Gems’ positioning can be really unusual. For example, Bismuth’s gem is actually flat against her body- in stark contrast to every other gem we’ve seen. Her gem actually sits mostly inside of her, with its outer edge aligning with her skin, creating a “cave” in her chest.

So basically, conventional placement logic would suggest LG’s gem would sit in her body much like Topaz’s gem, with the longer facets hidden by the skin. This would fit, thematically, with how brilliant cut gemstones (that stereotypical diamond shape, or chaos emerald, if you will) are usually set in jewelry, with the larger face outward.

But what if it isn’t?

This is Blue’s gemstone in The Answer. We only see it from the side once:

You can see it through the ring curtain. This suggests that her gem sticks forward quite a bit before narrowing to a point. It’s more like, say, Jasper’s gem with a flat facet added in the center than it is, say, Amethyst’s, which is sort of cushion or button-shaped.

So what’s the interesting thing here?

The lighthouse gem is held by the bottom in the main shot of Steven holding it up, which hides this from view, but- when it first pops from the wall you can see that it actually doesn’t come to a point. It has a flat edge on one side.

So my theory is, roughly: what if the gem sits backwards in her body? With the larger facet inside and the point outward.

It might sound a little offbeat, but, thematically, it’d say something very interesting about LG, and potentially, about Blue Diamond: that these people are icebergs. They have many more thoughts and feelings than show on the surface.

LG is unusual because out of all of the season 1 Gem antagonists, she’s the only one who hides, both from the Crystal Gems, and from the target of her anger (Lars). Before Horror Club she had sat right under the CGs’ noses for years and blatantly avoided reacting to the Crystal Gems breaking into the lighthouse in Keep Beach City Weird. In Horror Club itself, she lets them get a good way into their scary movie party before ever acting.

This tells us this is someone who hides herself. Her primary line of defense and reflex when stressed is to disappear, and it’s only when she’s completely assured does she show her hand. 

When Blue Diamond was facing Rose, her response was first to try and determine the nature of the event before it even happened with Sapphire. Her second response was to remove herself from the situation.

Some people have characterized this as selfish cowardice, but I don’t really buy that read- if we were supposed to see it as that, then why would she leave her guards behind to engage Rose and try to protect the court? Why would she come to Earth personally in the first place rather than delegate?

There’s also the fact that both Blue and LG, when they are assured of where they stand, or are in the right place to act- are fearless about it. There is nothing surreptitious about LG’s attack on Lars and the other partygoers. When Ronaldo tries to ask her to “tone it down” she specifically throws a cup at his foot in response. Blue has  no problem confronting Ruby and Sapphire and interrogating them on what just happened and who’s responsible for this.

But Blue is definitely cautious. There’s the juxtaposition of force with a sense of holding back until you know everything you need. Unlike Yellow, who seems to trust that her system and workers will give her specific quantifiable data which she can use to make the most accurate approach- a very scientific attitude- Blue seems to much more take the role of a kind of private eye or investigator. She wants to personally see her options, take testimony over data, and contemplate her approach.

Blue is presented as much more mystical, ethereal, and to a degree historical compared to YD’s modern CEO vibe. Blue really feels like royalty, to the point that she holds court and is attended by aristocrats. She is enthroned, but there is something austere about her finery. Not to the degree of YD, who doesn’t seem to have patience for anything of the sort to the point that her allegedly ostentatious Pearl serves a clearly defined and delegated position (a secretary or phone operator, much more than a handmaiden) but Blue reads as a kind of spiritual or magical-focused leader. 

That she’s introduced in the very Disney Sleeping Beauty-feeling The Answer almost gives Blue the image of a fairytale witch. Ruby and Sapphire are Philip and Aurora, the heroic lovers- and Blue is Maleficent- predating them and armed with knowledge and power. In contrast to the lovers, who know almost nothing about their situation or even their newfound power (Garnet), Blue seems to, if anything, know much more than she’s telling. She’s the only one who doesn’t seem surprised that Garnet is even possible, and cuts immediately to- whose doing is this? Sapphire, did you lie to me?

This turned longer and veered off the topic of gem placement, but if the gem itself basically serves as an indication of the seat of the character’s soul, to a degree- it would make perfect sense if Blue’s gem was mostly hidden from view. 

[mouser26]

Beauty and The Beast 21st year

Ok so I see this one go around a lot on tumbler, FB, an lordy knows where else

How old was the Beast when he was cursed by the witch?

the argument stems from this dialoge

“The rose, which was truly an enchanted rose, which would bloom until his 21st year” ~Narrator

“Ten years we’ve been rusting…” ~ Lumiere

Leading people to think “Oh! 21-10=11! Prince Adam was a Kid the enchantress was a bitch!”

Thing in there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence that this is very very wrong.

There’s the stained glass in the prologue 

Uh that doesn’t look like a kid to me. He’s got freaking armor on for godsakes

And there’s the portrait in the west wing

11yrs old my butt that’s a freaking adult.

I think the key here is in the wording (and I’m going to use other disney movies to prove it) 

“The rose, which was truly an enchanted rose, which would bloom until his 21st year”

Many times over we’ve seen in fairy tales that spells and magic in general can be very tricky things and often worded in specific ways for a reason.

Example Aladdin gets a ‘freebie’ out of the cave because

“I never actually wished to get out of the cave, huh. You did that on your own.”

And specifically here the spell isn’t until his 21st birthday like Maleficent’s curse on Aurora 

“Before the sun sets on her 16th birthday, she shall prick her finger - on the spindle of a spinning wheel - and DIE! ” 

Nope the wording is

his 21st year

Most people assumes this means his 21st year of life but I think it means his 21st year as a beast.

And in the way of all good spells no one actually physically ages while under the spell. This explains why Chip is still a child and the beast looks the same as his portrait. 

Why 21years? Dunno. Maybe more time to think and learn from his actions?

It’s also a pretty powerful spell since it affects not only the prince but all the servants and even the castle itself as we see at the end 21 could have been a matter of strength given that it’s prime bases are 3 and 7 both considered very powerful numbers in many cultures.

So I think the curse was meant to go on for 21 years 

That brings us to the line from “Be Our Guest”

“Ten years we’ve been rusting…”

This can be taken 1 or 2 ways and both still support my theory

1. Only in the last 10 years have the servants started to give up hope and become more stationary. Possibly as a result of less people being able to approach the castle lost in the woods, which also explains why people in the village seemingly have no idea the castle or Beast even exist. No regular traffic means it could have been assumed abandoned and subsequently forgotten

or

2. The Curse has only been in effect for 10 out of the 21 years (least likely)

I mean take a look at the rose when Belle first sees it

It’s still pretty healthy though it is starting to wilt so this could mean the spell is at it’s half life and will wilt slowly (Belle is with him for what seems to be several months without anyone panicking) or it’s nearing on the end of it’s life.

why then is the rose suddenly dying at the end?

Because Beast is dying.

Broken heart or the knife to the back take your pick, the’s no spell if there’s no heartbeat

TLDR: The Beast wasn’t 11 years old the spell was for 21 years

[aion-rsa]

How Mulan’s Main Antagonist Almost Breaks the Disney Mold

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This article contains MAJOR spoilers for Disney’s Mulan. You can read our spoiler-free review of the film here.

A recurring visual motif in Disney’s 1998 animated Mulan is the titular warrior staring at her own face, rendered unfamiliar by makeup and wondering at how to reconcile the image of that stranger with the truth of herself hiding inside. The film’s core “I Want” song, “Reflection,” articulates this ambivalence, this sense of carrying two selves, with lyrics like: who is that girl I see / staring straight back at me / why is my reflection someone I don’t know. The Mulan (Yifei Liu) of 2020, however, doesn’t have to peer at her own blurred reflection in a pond. Instead, those alternate selves are made flesh. She confronts her reflection in the faces of her sister Xiu (Xana Tang), and to a much greater extent the Rourans’ warrior-witch Xianniang (Gong Li): the two potential futures available to her. Throughout the course of the film, Mulan forges a new, third future that she makes reality. And she probably couldn’t have done it without her main antagonist: Xianniang.

From Xianniang’s first scene with Böri Khan, the antagonist is presented as the cautionary tale for what could have been, had young Mulan not heeded her father’s advice to hide her qi as she reached womanhood: Xianniang was exiled from her home for refining her qi, a privilege granted only to men, so that by the time the Rouran commander found her, she was “a scorned dog.” Böri Khan gave her a way to direct her anger and betrayal at her own people, with the promise that, when he ruled China, she would have what she most wanted: a place where her powers would not be vilified, even if that place would only exist under his totalitarian rule.

The promise of this dark future is the chain with which he leashes Xianniang, despite them both knowing that she is more powerful than him by leagues. When he calls her a witch, she grabs his throat and corrects him: “Not witch—warrior.” Yet he laughs at the notion of calling her a warrior, because they both know that a woman cannot name herself with such an honorable title; she must be named by others. The only option is a slur.

The most breathtaking example of this society’s casual sexism comes at the training camp, when Mulan-as-Hua-Jun shows off his use of qi while sparring with Honghui (Yoson An). Later, Commander Tung (Donnie Yen) gently scolds him—for hiding his ability. “You need to cultivate your gift,” he says. “Your qi is powerful, Hua Jun. Why do you hide it?” As a man, Mulan is chided for not utilizing her advantage, while as a woman she would be exiled for daring to do so.

Even her father Hua Zhou’s narration belies the tricky nature of qi: “The qi pervades the universe and all living things. We are all born with it. But only the most true will connect deeply to his qi and become a great warrior.” Only those who use their qi can be true, but only men can use their qi. Women are trapped from the start, with no chance to fulfill that trueness.

All of this lays the foundation for Mulan’s four confrontations with Xianniang—which, interestingly, map onto the four virtues of the film.

True

While the new Mulan adaptation uses the same story beats as the animated film in revealing Mulan’s true identity, they come in a different order, granting our warrior protagonist agency over this pivotal moment in a way she never got in the 1998 film. Instead of getting wounded and having the doctor discover her body beneath her armor, it is Mulan’s bindings that stop Xianniang’s deadly arrow from piercing her heart. Hua Jun dies, but Mulan lives.

Yet even before what was supposed to be a killing blow, Xianniang shames Mulan for lying. “Your deceit poisons your qi,” she snarls in disgust when they first fight—of course she immediately recognizes Mulan as another woman taking on a mantle not offered to her. Twice, Xianniang gives her the opportunity to identify herself; twice, Mulan says, “I am Hua Jun, soldier in the Emperor’s army!”

“Then you will die pretending to be something you’re not,” says the Rouran warrior, who bears the slur of witch by embodying everything that her own people accuse her of being: otherworldly, powerful, unpredictable.

Despite representing opposing sides on the battlefield, Mulan clearly recognizes some solidarity with the other woman. Why else would she willingly return to the Imperial Army as herself? She could have pulled the arrow from her bindings, readjusted her armor, reclaimed her helmet, and ridden back as Hua Jun, having miraculously escaped death. Instead, inspired to finally fulfill the third virtue stamped on her father’s sword, she presents herself in all her courage and vulnerability.

And they call her an impostor and cast her out.

Loyal

Though I briefly theorized that Xiu could have grown up into Xianniang, making her and Mulan sisters, in actuality, having Xianniang be older than Mulan makes her story even more compelling. There is a dearth of older women in fantasy stories, and in Disney tales they are very deliberately siloed into specific roles: Anyone over “marriageable age” is dead (mothers), evil (stepmothers and/or witches), or supporting characters lacking their own arc (fairy godmothers). Obviously, Xianniang falls into the evil category, but the sympathy woven into her story elevates her beyond her peers. Even if you could identify with Maleficent not getting invited to Aurora’s birth, or felt a twinge for the Evil Queen chasing after beauty via her magic mirror, we are taught that these women are past their prime, that they are pathetic for competing with their younger replacements.

Xianniang has no need to compete with Mulan; she was already a prodigy in her youth, rich in her power, and she was crushed for it. She has seen the consequences of trying to fit into their society by men’s standards. That’s why Xianniang invites Mulan to join her, because she sees the younger woman as someone to mold to her own vengeance, to replace Böri Khan as the catalyst for reshaping their future. “Join me,” Xianniang says, the tropiest of moments yet still aching with authenticity as two women trying to find a way forward together. “We will take our place together.”

But Mulan, who has known the camaraderie of men like Honghui and Tung (even if they cast her out) and who clings to the promise of her father’s unfaltering love, rejects Xianniang. “I know my place,” she says, “and it is my duty to fight for the kingdom and protect the Emperor.” And there is something troubling in that a woman will choose the patriarchal society that rejected her over creating something new by allying with a woman who has already trod her path. Yet neither is Xianniang’s destructive plan tenable. Mulan chooses the loyalty she knows, imperfect as it is, over a potential new loyalty, even if it sees her for who she truly is.

Brave

When the two meet again, Xianniang sits on the Emperor’s throne, and Mulan finally believes her: “You were right,” she tells the warrior-witch. “We are the same.”

“With one difference,” Xianniang says sadly. “They accept you, but they will never accept me.”

But buoyed by Honghui and her friends’ willingness to follow her into battle, Mulan believes that they can still change the tide. “You told me my journey was impossible,” she urges Xianniang. “Yet here I stand, proof that there is a place for people like us.”

Unfortunately, this is where what had been an affirming, feminist dynamic falls prey to worn-out tropes in which the older woman gives up. “It’s too late for me,” Xianniang intones, and transforms into her falcon form—not to escape, but to lead the way for Mulan to save the Emperor from Böri Khan, and to seal her own fate.

Devotion to Family

Xianniang is not Mulan’s blood, but they are nonetheless bonded by their mastery of qi. Xianniang is not Mulan’s sister, but she is a role model. When she tells Böri Khan that a young woman from a small village is the sole resistance to his plot, she can’t help smiling at the irony of it. And when he scoffs, “A girl,” she is quick to correct him, not with her violence over the use of the word witch, but with calm certainty: “A woman. A warrior. A woman leads the army, and she is no scorned dog.”

When Böri Khan sees this warrior for himself, before even allowing her to engage him in their first and only face-to-face fight in the film, he takes the coward’s way out: shooting an arrow at her, to swat her away like an inconvenience rather than treating her as an equal.

Are we at all surprised that Xianniang takes the arrow intended for Mulan, and then dies in the young warrior’s arms? “Take your place,” she whispers in her final words, before speaking the woman’s name like a spell, like a blessing: “Mulan.”

In that moment, Xianniang is the fairy godmother quietly stepping offstage after magicking the carriage. She is the evil queen who brings about her own literal downfall by stumbling off a cliff. The wonder of having an older woman in a fantasy story does not last if she dies in the end, doubly so if she takes herself out so that there can be only one female warrior because our mainstream storytelling still too often believes that women can be powerful, but only as exceptions to the patriarchal rule, and only for as long as they are young and traditionally beautiful and never challenge the dominance of men. Women can be powerful, but only in the ways borrowed from traditional masculinity: as soldiers, as comrades to other men, as defenders of the rightness of patriarchy. 

Mulan’s fight with Böri Khan is inconsequential, even as she uses qi to defeat him, because the movie’s most important figure has already died, and in the most demeaning fashion. What’s insidious is that their culture still wins out over two women allying together. Mulan carves out her own place in the world, but it is a singular role; it does not leave room for someone like Xianniang, who is considered too far gone to save. It’s ironic how the writers built an entire complex character out of Shan Yu’s falcon from the animated film, but in the end she is reduced back to a symbol.

I already made the joke in my review that the inevitable 2040 remake will hopefully make up for some of this movie’s stumbles. Hopefully, by then, viewers will not just get more than one woman in the movie, but both women will make it to the ending credits.

Mulan is available now on Disney+. More details on how to watch it here.

The post How Mulan’s Main Antagonist Almost Breaks the Disney Mold appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3jVTGqR