Angelina Jolie has signed on to Disney’s ‘Maleficent 2′: awesome or meh?

jolie1

The other day, I was thinking about how sad it is that Angelina Jolie rarely acts these days. It felt like By the Sea was her last starring role for a long time. But here’s some happy news for those Jolie-fans: Angelina will be reprising her role as Maleficent! Her collaboration with Disney for a retelling of the Sleeping Beauty story was a giant hit, making more than $750 million at the domestic and international box office and making it Angelina’s biggest box office to date. Disney and Angelina seemed to enjoy their collaboration – in fact, Disney executives went as far as saying that if Angelina hadn’t taken the role, they wouldn’t have even done the movie – and so it seems like everyone’s happy about Maleficent 2. Also, Disney is going full-throttle with their live-action fairy tale films, it seems.

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures confirmed Monday that it is currently developing nine live-action movies. The announcement comes after the success of Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book. Since its release on Apr. 15, the live-action adaptation of the studio’s 1967 animated classic has earned $533 million at the global box office. The House of Mouse’s slate already includes two fairy tale tentpoles, Alice Through the Looking Glass (in theaters May 27, 2016) and Beauty and the Beast (in theaters March 17, 2016), as well as this summer’s Pete’s Dragon (in theaters Aug. 12, 2016).

Projects on deck include Cruella, with Emma Stone set to star and Kelly Marcel writing; Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing and Ehren Kruger writing; Maleficent 2, with Angelina Jolie set to star and Linda Woolverton writing; A Wrinkle in Time, with Ava DuVernay attached to direct and Jennifer Lee writing; Jungle Cruise, with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson set to star and John Requa and Glenn Ficarra writing; a Mary Poppins sequel set to star Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda, with director Rob Marshall; The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, with Lasse Hallström directing and Ashleigh Powell writing; The Jungle Book 2, with Jon Favreau directing and writer Justin Marks writing; and a Tinker Bell project with Reese Witherspoon set to star and Victoria Strouse writing. Some of these films will get release dates in the coming months.

[From E! News]

I’m excited about Ava DuVernay working for Disney now. She took meetings with Marvel (owned by Disney) a while back and decided that the Marvel world wasn’t for her, but she was open to working for Disney. I’m also interested in how they’re going to do Cruella with Emma Stone… it could really, really work or it could be an utter disaster. Going back to Maleficent 2… I wonder what the story will be? I actually enjoyed the first Maleficent and I loved that they made it about Maleficent becoming a surrogate mother to Aurora and all of that. It was kid-friendly and it had a nice message. But where do they go from there?

wenn22230327

wenn21404045

Photos courtesy of Disney, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

77 Responses to “Angelina Jolie has signed on to Disney’s ‘Maleficent 2′: awesome or meh?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Allthegoodnamesaretaken says:

    love Jolie! yay!

  2. Eve says:

    Awesome!

    Anything that puts her in front of the camera is fine by me.

  3. CornyBlue says:

    Yes! I will have more woman in cinema and take them wherever I get them thanks

  4. lower-case deb says:

    i’m interested only to know the storyline. her teaching Aurora to be a great leader? an eco warrior? i’m actually interested to see a post-coda Aurora. something more than just “riding off to the sunset”.

    any new something to answer the question “okay mommmmm ding dong the witch is dead, we’re back home now what?”

    “you go and pay the bills,” don’t sound too fairytale-y.

  5. Mia4s says:

    So much meh. All the meh. She was great but as a movie overall, Maleficent was dreadful. Terribly weak script.

    That Mary Poppins project is starting to intrigue though…

    • Chaucer says:

      Maleficent was my favorite villain because she was evil just for the sake of ruining everything for no real reason and was in it for the long game. You didn’t invite her to a party? BAM! Your kid gets an eternal sleep, she wakes up having everyone she loved dead when the 100 year old prince who she loved kisses her, and you not only get to die knowing you’ll never see her awake again, you get sixteen years to stress about it knowing there’s nothing you can do.

      The movie completely wrecked that and was absolutely awful. I don’t hold on to a lot of things but I think I’ll be butthurt over it forever. Jolie was a GREAT choice for an evil, vindictive Maleficent and then Disney had to completely ruin her character.

      • LAK says:

        The curse wasn’t eternal sleep. It was death. However, Maleficent gave her gift before the last good fairy had given her gift, so good fairy decided to change death gift to eternal sleep gift with hope in the form of a true love’s kiss after 100yrs. We’ll never know what that fairy’s gift would have been.

        I love fairytales, but they are really scary. I hate the disney sanitised versions of them. I especially hate when they change a character’s motivation or give them a more palatable backstory as they did with MALEFICENT. And yes, Jolie was perfectly cast.

        Some of the best Disney Villains have been where they’ve enjoyed their villainy without regret or sob story eg Gaston in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or Jaffer in ALADDIN.

      • lizabeth says:

        I agree, I want my villains to be villains!

        It was a very visually attractive movie and Jolie was pitch perfect, but it’s very much for little children with no real ‘bite’ or darkness.

      • Tris says:

        Ha ha – I haven’t seen the movie, but this is a great review! thanks!

    • Artemis says:

      Same. So much meh. Not interested in any of these projects!

      The only sequel I want to see Jolie in, is Salt 2. A film fans actually HAVE been asking for! I’ll even take a 3rd Tomb Raider, a mature Lara Croft still kicking but (older male action stars can do it, so can she!).

      She was great in Maleficent, she’s perfect for the role but the plot was weak and it ruined the whole point of Maleficent: she’s a villain. End of. I never felt she was truly evil in the movie, you could tell how it was going to end.

      Hollywood is out of ideas and it’s embarrassing. Can’t remember the last time I was remotely interested in a project.

      • Naya says:

        But the Salt plot is so much weaker than Malificents. I mean a cell of assassin orphans? Thats straight out of the 90s B movie action genre…and not in a good way. I agree Malificent took a sappy turn that ruined what initially seemed like a smart film but its still miles ahead of Salt.

      • Artemis says:

        Salt had an ‘original’ plot so you didn’t know about the character and how it was supposed to progress. Sure it was weak, but I tend to go into any Jolie action film not expecting some great plot, I go in expecting her to whoop butt and looking hot while doing so. She’s one of my Action Queens so she can do no wrong.

        Maleficent did have a backstory, a famous one at that. I went in with certain expectations and they butchered that character and I realised very early one what was going to happen too. Predictable, meh. Therefore, Maleficent is subpar and I would pick ANY Jolie action film over Maleficent (and the Tourist).

        Jolie is best when whooping butt. And again, there were rumours about Salt 2, people would’ve accepted Jolie as Lara Croft pre-2008 and she’s very popular in general as an action star. Nobody however was asking for Maleficent 2. They did this because it made money.

    • mia girl says:

      “Mary Poppins sequel set to star Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda, with director Rob Marshall”

      Mia4a: WHAT????? When was Lin-Manuel cast? This completely moved to the top of my list if it is true.

      EDIT: It is TRUE! http://www.broadway.com/buzz/184649/hamiltons-lin-manuel-miranda-will-star-opposite-emily-blunt-in-mary-poppins/

  6. Catelina says:

    I usually find sequels unnecessary and I didn’t think the first movie was anything more than solid/decent to begin with. But she is utterly perfect for the role, and it made a ton of money, so sure, why not?

  7. No Smoking says:

    Thumbs up.

  8. AlmondJoy says:

    I really liked the first one! I know it was a fantasy but I found her performance heartbreaking. I’ll go see the second one.

    • V4Real says:

      I actually liked it. Though I was still on the fence about them making Maleficent out to be the victim and that’s why she ended up evil and then making her good again. I like my villains to remain villains.

      A sequel will most likely make money unless it suffers The Huntsman fate.
      A sequel I do want to see her in is Salt. Come on Angie, I know you have at least one more in you.

      • Maya says:

        Me too – I want Angelina to act in Salt 2…

      • AlmondJoy says:

        And see I’m the opposite lol… I love seeing why villains become evil in the first place and I also love when they change their colors. I guess it doesn’t make for that great of a sequel though.

    • Petee says:

      Me too.I loved it.Her screaming when her wings were cut was heartbreaking.

  9. Trixie says:

    ‘Maleficent’ was boring as hell. I hope the second one is better.

  10. Cee says:

    Yeah!!!!!!!!! I will watch Angelina in anything.

  11. Samtha says:

    I loved the first one, but…I don’t know about a sequel.

  12. meme says:

    meh. enough with the sequels, prequels, noquels, nyquill

  13. Pandy says:

    Loved the first one – let’s hope a sequel is just as good or better.

  14. cvb says:

    I hope jolie does bride of frankenstein and cleopatra as well. I’m not a big fan of all her directorial efforts.

  15. wrinkled says:

    I just saw the casting notice for Wrinkle in Time. They’re looking for mixed race (African-American/Caucasian) kids.

  16. lisa2 says:

    The movie made over 750 million dollars.. much more I’m sure with dvd sales and merchandise. Which Angie got a share of. So why not.. They have a sequel for everything else.

    Superficial note: She was unbelievably stunning in that movie.. That scene at the Christening.. her face was just too beautiful to look at. Not many people are that striking on film.

  17. Dani L says:

    I loved Maleficent and like the idea of another movie but…where would it go? The first movie basically wrapped everything up.

    And I’m excited for a live action Tinkerbell movie (my 5 month old loves those fairies lol) but I’m not sure about Reese Witherspoon as Tink.

    • lisa2 says:

      They could have an attack on the Kingdom.. or Aurora needing her help.. I’m interested.. I took my nieces and some of their friends. They liked it. And to me it was a very kid friendly version. Which movies like this are suppose to be. The problem comes when there is a need to appeal to an older audience.. These movies are for kids.. so adults can have their childhood versions.. let the kids have this one. And it looks like the kids enjoyed seeing it.. boys too for that matter.

    • pwal says:

      The hell there isn’t.

      The movie ended with Maleficent and Aurora in a good place with each other, but who knows how Aurora’s kingdom will receive Aurora, given that she was raised by fairies and is connected to Maleficent. Will she be allowed to rule her own kingdom? Will Stefan’s loyalists start their campaign against the fairies again? If Aurora is in love with that prince, will he try to use his influence to interfere in Aurora’s relationship with Male?

      Oh… there’s story there.

  18. jemimaleopard says:

    I’m all in for Angelina as Maleficent again but… a- Emma Stone is no Glenn Close, b- why so many remakes, c- nobody compares to Julie Andrews (sorry Emily Blunt I still like you) and d- Tinkerbell with Reese ‘American Citizen’ Witherspoon???!

  19. zut alors! says:

    I saw the first one and enjoyed it for what it was. I know it made a lot of money when it was predicted to be a write off for Disney and Angelina should get credit for its succes. Having said all that, I don’t really see the need for a sequel other than just a straight up money grab. I see a Snow White prequel type failure if they proceed with it.

  20. Neelyo says:

    I wonder if she signed the contract before the box office receipts for HUNTSMAN WINTER’S WAR were tallied.

    • Maya says:

      I think Maleficent was a huge hit due to Angelina – only 1 movie wasn’t a hit the past decade or so with her in.

      Huntsman is with Chris and Charlize who are not known to be box office draw.

      • FingerBinger says:

        Maleficent was a hit largely due to being Disney.

      • zut alors! says:

        @Fingerbonger. Yes, it was all due to Disney. That’s why Maleficent made $200 million dollars more at the box office than Cinderella which had better reviews and was the more well known of the 2 fairy tales.

      • lizabeth says:

        Well look at the Jungle Book. Disney prints money when they go back to their classics, and Cinderella cost half of what Maleficent did to make.

        I’m sure there was a bump because Jolie is a massive, bankable movie star who did tons of promotion, but the movie was going to make bank either way.

      • Maya says:

        If I remember correctly – the media predicted Maleficent to flop but it didn’t.

        Maleficent was not loved like Cinderella and Snowwhite and yet this movie has out grossed them.

        That is largely due to Angelina – credit should be given when it is due.

  21. Maya says:

    Yes yes yes – Angelina was absolutely born to play Maleficent and she did an amazing job.

    The rape scene and the scene she tried to revoke the curse was executed brilliantly and was touching.

    Linda is an amazing script writer and I am sure both her and Angelina will do an equally amazing job with the sequel.

    Story wise – I want sleeping beauty to die or go into coma and Maleficent to become full blown evil and she will turn into the dragon..

  22. Ana says:

    Mal was in fact a giant hit . The overseas numbers are out of the charts. More then 517 millions something almost impossíbel to achieve in a movie with this nature. I am not crazy about sequels but I understand why she is doing it. If rumors are true she was paid 15 millions to do mal. If they really secure her she must have signed for something 30 millions minimum.

    • Maya says:

      I remember reading she got 20/20 ie 20 million upfront and 20 percent of the profits.

      She probably has the some deal this time around.

      • Ana says:

        Deadline reported 15 million. they never imagined that the movie would gross so much so I doubt she will receive the same.

      • lizabeth says:

        Forbes also said $15 million, but it should be a lot more with the second movie.

        Sandra Bullock got at least $70 mil for Gravity, with £20 mil paycheck plus 15% of the profits.

      • Maya says:

        I think she got more and will again for the second one because she executive produced the movie.

      • No Smoking says:

        I think she got a lot more than $15million. One Hollywood executive used her as an example when talking about gender pay gap and said she made a lot of money from Maleficent.

  23. Soprana says:

    Live action Dumbo???

    I do NOT want to see live pink elephants, thank you very much.

  24. Ademinda says:

    Is she wearing a shiny trashbag in that last pic? What a bizarre looking dress.

  25. candyblackmail says:

    I don’t think the movie warrants a sequel, do you? Some of the best tales told have an ending.

  26. PortlandJan says:

    I actually liked Maleficent. Jolie was very good in the role, as was the actor who played, DIaval, her raven companion. However, I hope that Disney will omit the three pixies. They were just flying annoyances who added nothing to the story.

  27. Paige says:

    I’m surprised Angelina is doing a sequel especially since she never does them. I’m always excited to see Angie on camera so I’m happy!

    • mayamae says:

      Lara Croft had a sequel.

      • Paige says:

        In recent years, Angelina has stated she would only do sequels if she liked the script.

      • Jude says:

        AJ has had script and director approval since 2010. Since “The Tourist” she has co-star approval as well. The script for “SALT” was abysmal and Zimmer tried t maintain control of the sequel so no hope of getting AJ on board.

        Angie had 20 million against 20% of he “first money” proceeds on “Maleficent”, as well as executive producer fees. Forbes NEVER knows what they are talking about re: actor salaries. Why shouldn’t she do the sequel.

  28. Magnoliarose says:

    All of these reboots, sequels and movies based on classic stories are a direct result of screenwriters being pushed aside along with their original material. They have always been the lowest paid and respected in the Hollywood food chain, but now it is even worse. Studios save money when they have their in house screenwriters write a script based on source material.
    It is one of the reasons television has become more interesting in the last 10 years or so.
    I’m tired of them and know full well plenty of talented writers have good stories to tell but until the superhero genre gets beat to death, we won’t hear them.

    • Maya says:

      I am with you about the superhero movies.

      But we rarely have female superheroes so I am excited about this and Wonder Woman.

      Now if they could just give Black Widow her own movie…

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Now I’m with you on that. Give me a female kicking butt and taking names then I’m on board.

    • LAK says:

      Superhero films have their place, BUT in the past 15yrs, studios finally figured out how to make them work after decades of trying and flopping, and gaming companies keep funding them because they provide good source material for games.

      I’m old enought to member when cinemas would offer different types of films on the same day eg you’d have morning showing of cartoon/family film, followed by afternoon B film – usually an action/superhero/fantasy film, and the evening film was an adult subject film – usually your dramas. The way TV is programmed.

      These days, especially because all the money is being funnelled to superhero films, the same film will dominate all screens multiple times a day in one multiplex. The other genre films don’t get a look in.

      • Magnoliarose says:

        Just as you said, they have their place but I’m missing small profound character driven movies with great dialog. Only during award season do we get to see great character actors and heavy plots.
        Unfortunately I grew up in the era of multiplexes. If we wanted to see something different we had to go to art house theatres or theatres that specialize in showing older films on screen. I can’t think of the name of them at the moment. That is fine, but they don’t get a chance to shine.

        I didn’t know they used to stagger movies like that. Interesting.

  29. Mayaline says:

    That logic that this movie did 750M Dollar because Jolie was in it, lol, that doesn’t make sense otherwise her other movies wouldn’t have tanked.

    • lisa2 says:

      The fact that you are discounting her in it is what is laughable. When you ask people about the move it is HER that they reference. And her “other movies” have not tanked. Just because an actor has a movie or two or even 3 not make a huge BO doesn’t mean everything. She can open a movie. Unlike many females that have never ever in their careers opened a movie on their own.

    • Jude says:

      Really???? Seriously?

  30. Kate says:

    Maleficent was so terribly boring, and it completely ran out of steam towards the end. I can’t imagine how they plan on getting another film out of their botched characterisation.

  31. Louise177 says:

    I haven’t seen “Maleficent” but I can’t imagine how a sequel could be made. The original story is so final I doubt another film will be good. I usually don’t make predictions but I think this film will fail.

  32. Square Bologna says:

    Can’t stand her. Won’t watch her in anything.

  33. L says:

    Yay! I can’t wait to see Angelina onscreen again…beautiful lady inside and out.

  34. Lucy2 says:

    I couldn’t get into it (actually fell asleep halfway through and never went back to finish) but it made a lot of money so of course they’re doing a sequel.
    I’m kind of interested in the Mary Poppins reboot, but beyond that I’d much rather see original material rather than remakes.

  35. Lari says:

    “Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing” – the original was sad enough, with Tim Burton the story is probably going to be set in the Dumbo’s afterlife…which would then make kids sad and terrified at the same time! :)

  36. emma says:

    I LOVED the first Maleficent. I will probably see this one too.