Disney now celebrates evil?

I never expected the Bible from them, but this seems over the top.  Via Asleep No More: Selling Evil To You And Your Children.

Maleficent is an evil fairy, she always has been by intention. She’s been the foul enemy in numerous Disney films, TV shows and video games. She is a personification of Satan. She is never portrayed as anything but the most wicked person in the world, the self proclaimed “Mistress of All Evil” Her devilish horns are intended to look like Baphomet, and her evil minion was Diablo (spanish for devil). This is the message and the symbolism of Sleeping Beauty: Maleficent is Satan – dark and evil, King Stephan is the loving father/lord, Aurora is the anyperson loved and prized by King Stefan and hated by Maleficent because King Stefan loves her so much, and Prince Phillip is the savior of Aurora who loves her as much as King Stefan loves her.

Now Disney turns everything around: King Stefan is no longer hereditary king, he’s a peasant planning to assume the crown by any means, and Maleficent is his ‘girlfriend’. Maleficent defeats the old king in a battle and the king offers his throne to whomever defeats her. Stefan drugs Maleficent, attempts to kill her, and instead cuts her wings off, a scene that has been interpreted by many reviews as metaphoric rape. Stefan then uses those wings as proof that he killed  Maleficent in order to gain the throne.

Maleficent and her evil minion Daival (just a creative spelling of Devil) spy on King Stefan, and just as in Sleeping Beauty Maleficent crashes the christening of Princess Aurora, places a death curse on the infant , the curse gets modified but Aurora still pricks her finger on a spinning wheel and falls asleep.

Now the story starts to twist more and more. King Stefan’s castle, once beautiful but sad because Aurora couldn’t live there (in Sleeping Beauty) is now dark and filled with traps and spikes. Where the Sleeping Beauty King Stefan was worried about Aurora, this King Stefan is worried about himself and has Aurora locked up when he meets her. After Aurora falls asleep rather than storming the castle and battling Maleficent and rescuing Princess Aurora, Prince Phillip is dragged to the castle by Maleficent (who had a change of heart) but his kiss is ineffectual and he just kind of wanders off stupidly. It’s Maleficent who kisses Aurora and revives her. In the battle scene where once upon a time the Savior Prince Phillip fought and slew Maleficent and saved Aurora, it’s now King Stefan battling Maleficent who now has her wings back (thanks to Aurora) and she slays King Stefan. Princess Aurora eventually marries Prince Philip, and Aurora intones “My kingdom was united by one who was both hero and villain.”

So there you have it, the good King and lord becomes a power hungry madman bent on murder, his beautiful castle is a deathtrap, the savior is an impotent stuffed shirt, the anyperson owes her very existence to the personification of evil, and the personification of evil is really a Nice Person. The whole thing made me sick.

We’ve all heard of God’s Plan of Salvation, this movie is Satan’s Plan of Damnation put up on the big screen for everyone to see. It expresses exactly what Satan wants us to believe – sure he did a bad thing or two in the past, but GOD’s really the bad one. Speak to any evangelical Atheist. You know the type, the ones that are nearly foaming at the mouth in rage when ever Jesus’ name is mentioned (oddly pagan deities like Buddha, Vishnu, Odin, or Allah don’t seem to bother them), they are convinced that the God they don’t believe in is the root of all evil. (They honestly do!)



40 thoughts on “Disney now celebrates evil?”

      1. Cranky is right, it’s been out a long time, but I don’t think that negates a good review. I read the review by Focus on the Family, with the idea of the lesbian kiss, and the rest of the junk you mentioned, and decided not to bother with it.

        But reviewing movies, even old ones, is a good idea because there are indeed people who haven’t seen it yet and may be looking for good review. As for an old one to review, a few years back I review Ben Hur because my wife and I had just watched it for the first time in at least a decade. I hoped my review of it led readers to use more discernment when decided to see movies.


      2. I saw it. It could not possibly be sensual. It was the same type of kiss on the forehead as a parent saying good-bye to a child; Maleficent believed that Sleeping Beauty was gone forever – because of her – and was sorrowfully kissing her on the forehead in that way.

        I hope that the reviewers were lying about believing it was intended to be sensual; the alternative that they cannot differentiate between sexual and nonsexual affection – even when children are involved – is even more disturbing.


  1. This reminds me of “How To Train Your Dragon”. The young hero comes back to warn all the townspeople, who have been at war with the dragons forever, “All we thought we know about them is wrong!!”.


  2. I saw the movie in the theater and it was not Satan’s Plan for Damnation.

    First problem: assuming that Disney’s Sleeping Beauty is an allegory for the Gospel. It is not. It was a cartoon adaptation of a fairy tale (that included the prince having sex with Sleeping Beauty while she was under her curse.)

    Actually, everything comes crumbing down once you realize that Sleeping Beauty isn’t that allegory, because the entire article can only make sense in that context.

    The premise of the movie, on the other hand, is the idea that the story you think you know and what actually happened are very different. Ever After uses the same idea with Cinderella. The TV show Once Upon a Time twists EVERY fairy tale – and other literature, like Frankenstein. I guess Proverbs 18:17 doesn’t apply to cartoons.


  3. Oh my goodness…what an incredible stretch of your imagination. First off, I have never heard of Sleeping Beauty being an allegory for God’s plan of salvation. It’s a fairy tale about girls coming of age and moving into the world of sexual awareness. Also, Maleficent’s kiss was NOT a lesbian kiss, it was a mother kissing her child….she loved her like her own child….the new version has changed from a girl needs the love of a good man to a girl needs the love of a good mom. I saw the movie 3 times. I went under much protest, as I do not like anything with witches, etc. However, I was really surprised by the depiction of the love a mother has for her child…how experiencing that love changes one from being a self center, hell bent on revenge, nasty gal, to a soft heart that now has room for someone other than herself, so much room that the love of that child transforms her into a loving human being. It has a great moral….but maybe you need to be a mom and understand how powerful the love of mother and child can be.


    1. I have never heard that “Sleeping Beauty” was supposed to be a Christian analogy, and I think anyone who claims as much has a very vivid imagination.

      That being said, I think the movie was certainly an attempt to push an agenda of throwing out old stories which had a good moral and turn the main characters into mean and evil people who somehow took advantage of the person who became a villain in the old version. Just like they revise history to make events mean something they never meant, they want to totally rewrite fairy tales and legends to favor the LEFTIST ideology.

      And I don’t really believe the story that “Sleeping Beauty” was about the seasons. I think that is a johnny-come-lately story.


      1. Glenn, you need to research the origin of the story. It is a German fairy tale that was gathered by the Grimm brothers from the local peasants. The Brothers Grimm’s fairy tales come from old German, Danish and Norse sources. The only relation to Christianity is that the Grimm brothers were raised as Calvinists. In fact, they were criticized at the time that their fairy tales were to pagan and not Christian enough. I have seen Maleficent 3 times and to imply in any way that the kiss that Maleficent gives the child is too sensual would not be implying that it is a lesbian kiss but in fact, pedophilia, as it is a woman kissing a child. There is nothing lesbian, or sensual about it. It is a display of a woman who loves the child as her very own. She is filled with deep regret and sorrow that she cursed this child because she has come to know her and love her as if she was her own…..it is a beautiful moment and makes me cry every time I saw that scene, as I can completely relate to the love that she feels and is demonstrating to the child. It is truly a beautiful scene…but you probably couldn’t understand that anyway, because you are a man and cannot understand the bond between a mother and a child.


      2. Mary,
        I was not arguing that the story was Christian – I said that the idea would have to come from a vivid imagination. So I don’t understand your arguing the point again.

        I know where the fairy tails came from – I only doubted that the story had anything to do with the seasons.

        Apparently I remembered in error about Focus on the Family’s review; I looked at it againl. I think it was Debbie Schlussel’s review which mentioned the lesbian aspect. She often sees things in a much different way than the rest of us do. I don’t have a link to that one (I read FoF’s reviews weekly).

        I don’t want to watch the movie because I don’t like the way it has re-written the story.

        but you probably couldn’t understand that anyway, because you are a man and cannot understand the bond between a mother and a child.

        That is really an offensive, downright anti-male/feminist statement. I have been married for 38 years and have children. I fully, very fully understand the bond between mother and child. I see it on a daily basis.


      3. Hi Glenn, sorry you took my comment as being an attack on gender relationships. It’s not. And no, you cannot understand what a mother feels toward her child since you are a man. Just as we cannot understand what a father feels toward his children. The man did not carry that child in his body for nine months. He did not go through that experience. He does not know the agony and the ecstacy of child birth. He does not feel the first flutters of life inside the woman’s womb. He cannot feel that life growing and moving inside of her. It is an extremely personal experience and no man will ever be able to know that nor experience it. I fully understand that fathers love their children, no question, but it is not the same as the mother, and there is nothing sexist in that.


      4. Mary,

        Do you understand what the word “understand” means? By the meaning of the word, I fully understand the bond between mother and child. Don’t dismiss me as just a man. As I said, I have children, and I assisted in the birth of them. I lived with throughout the entire pregnancies and we actually communicated about emotions, desires, etc., as I would feel the daily difference in the baby and how it moved, etc. I UNDERSTAND what a woman goes through, I UNDERSTAND the emotional differences. The Bible tells husbands to live with their wives in an UNDERSTANDING way (1 Pet. 3:7), and if it was not possible to UNDERSTAND the wife and everything about her, then that would be a useless passage. Being unable to have full knowledge and experience does NOT equate to not understanding.


      5. Well Glenn, yes, I agree that you can share emotions and your wife can tell you how she’s feeling and you can say you understand…that’s fine and good that you are an emotionally involved husband. Your wife is very blessed by that. But sharing emotions and feelings is not YOU experiencing a life growing inside your womb. You don’t have one. You cannot experience giving child birth. You are not feeling the child growing in your womb. You are not experiencing the great pain and effort of birthing the child. You can assist in helping with the delivery but it is NOT the same thing as what your wife went through in actually carrying and expelling the child into the world. For all of your empathy and understanding and outside participation YOU will never be pregnant. YOU will never know what it is like to have a baby. It’s simple biology. Why the Lord designed it this way you will need to take up with Him. From my perspective, God has created a very sacred experience between Him and the woman carrying life. He is the author of that life and the intimacy of it is a holy thing between God and the woman. Just as it should have been a holy thing between the husband and wife when they joined to make the child. Like you said, the man can share in this from an outside perspective and experience, but the intimacy of the internal physical experience is only between the woman, child and God who created the life inside of her. If she is truly blessed beyond measure, then she will have a husband who is loving, supportive, caring, generous in heart and time who is willing to listen to her and do his utmost to emphasize his love and joy at the anticipation of their precious child. I hope I have made it a bit clearer.


      6. Mary,

        But sharing emotions and feelings is not YOU experiencing a life growing inside your womb. You don’t have one. You cannot experience giving child birth. You are not feeling the child growing in your womb. You are not experiencing the great pain and effort of birthing the child.

        I really don’t understand what your problem is. You keep raising straw men. I said I can “understand” a woman’s bond between her and her child. You keep attacking that as if the word “understand” means “experience,” or something. What is the problem with the word “understand.” How in the world do find yourself somehow diminished to have a man say he understands the bond between a mother and her child?!?!?

        I suggest you look up the word “understand” in a good dictionary and then explain to me how it is impossible for a man to understand the bond between mother and child.


      7. Glenn, it is impossible for you to fully understand the bond. The only way to fully understand the bond is to have experienced child birth yourself. Just as it is impossible to fully understand what open heart surgery feels like unless you experience it yourself. You keep saying that because you understand the emotions that your wife went through and understood what she was saying ‘about’ being pregnant that you can fully understand that in the same way that experiencing something gives us full understanding. You understand a lot about your wife’s pregnancy and you can understand a great deal about the bond between them, but it is impossible for you to fully understand it. You have never been pregnant, nor given birth.


      8. Mary,

        There are a lot of things a person can fully understand without experiencing it, but being there the whole time, having things explained, etc.

        I really think you have a problem with a man understanding a woman’s bond with her child. Either that or you are omniscient and KNOW what a person does or does not understand.


      9. Glenn, I’ll try one more time. There are things in life that we can understand from an ‘outside’ perspective, but full and complete understanding can only come from personally experiencing it. Let me try from this perspective….the bond between soldiers. Men and now women, who have fought together in war, of which I have several in my family, when they have fought in battle together have a special bond that no one can understand except another soldier. I love my relatives completely and I can understand some of the stuff they are going through. I understand that they are in great emotional pain. I understand the sense of pride and sorrow and pain at surviving when friends did not…..but my understanding is limited..even when they tell me what they are feeling and thinking and describe the horrors of war to me. When my relatives get with other military people there is a bond there that none of us can completely understand because we did not experience it with them. We did not personally feel the pain, even though it was described to us. I ‘understand’ that it hurt, but I did not experience it, so I do not truly understand they way the other soldiers do. There are things in life that to fully understand one must have experienced it. Child birth is one of them. Because there is a special bond between mother and child does not make yours any less meaningful or relevant. Mother’s relate to their children one way and father’s relate another way. That’s God’s design. Many years ago our Pastor, Dave Mills of Faith Community Church in La Mirada California made this comment one Mother’s Day….”Dad’s let me tell you something, the bond between your wives and their children is the most power bond on earth…don’t deceive yourselves into thinking it isn’t it.”….the whole church erupted into agreement at this statement. It’s not a judgmental statements against dad’s, it’s just that the bond is powerful when a woman carries that life inside of her and feels it growing inside of her. The baby is taking life from her body to survive and grow…it’s a beautiful and sacred thing. You Glenn, can have a lot of understanding about the way your wife was feeling. You can even watch the child be delivered and you can understand that it was quite an effort….but since you will never be pregnant and carry inside and deliver it yourself, your understanding is limited even though you understand a lot from being an observer of the process. I have nothing against men. In fact, I was much much closer to my dad than my mom. I loved and adored my dad. I miss him terribly. So your assumption that I have something against men is not correct. I am going to assume you are a Reformer who believes in complimentarianism. Under that assumption, I think you might have an issue with me saying that God has given women something very special, and that rubs you the wrong way because it seems that God has favored the woman in some way that goes against your belief that somehow God likes men better and gives the special favors to men. If I am wrong, I will apologize ahead of time.


      10. Mary,

        It seems to me that you are backing off. Your first statement was this:

        maybe you need to be a mom and understand how powerful the love of mother and child can be.

        My point was that it wasn’t necessary to be a mom to understand it. I never claimed that I could understand in the same way as experiencing it – never even intimated it. Yet your responses kept talking about experiencing as if that was my claim.

        Now you acknowledging that people CAN understand things without experiencing them. And that was my point all along when you claimed that one had to be a mom to UNDERSTAND the bond.

        I am a complimentarian, but I am NOT “reformed (i.e. Calvinist), so your assumption there is wrong. I think your ideas about specific connections between God and women is a bit far-fetched but that isn’t my argument. My argument has been from the beginning that one CAN understand the bond between a mother and child.


      11. I have not backed off….I said that you can understand in part, but not completely without experiencing it. How on earth is it far fetched that child birth is between mother, child and God, that the experience is a sacred experience? How is it far fetched that God has given this particular experience to woman and not men? What I have said is that the union of the mother and father is a holy experience and that the special experience of child birth is a sacred experience….wow, you think that is far fetched? Yes, I believe you, you are not reformed.


      12. I have not backed off….I said that you can understand in part, but not completely without experiencing it. How on earth is it far fetched that child birth is between mother, child and God, that the experience is a sacred experience? How is it far fetched that God has given this particular experience to woman and not men? What I have said is that the union of the mother and father is a holy experience and that the special experience of child birth is a sacred experience….wow, you think that is far fetched? Yes, I believe you, you are not reformed.

        So you think it is a sacred experience, even though the Bible never hints at such a thing, and then you question me for saying that is far-fetched!?!? And then I deserve a sarcastic, “Yes, I believe you, you are not reformed” as if reformed theology had anything to do with it, and as if there is something skewed with my thinking because I believe I can understand the bond between a mother and child and that I think it is far-fetched to say childbirth is a sacred experience!?!?!?!?!

        You just don’t like people believing differently than you, do you?


      13. Wow….you don’t think that the creation of life is a sacred thing? What is it like, getting a new pair of shoes? Glenn, you are so determined to be right, that you cannot even TRY to understand what someone is saying. There is no point in even trying to have a discussion with you because you are closed minded. I hope you have better listening skills with your wife and children and don’t have this right fighting attitude with them.


      14. Thanks for the ad hominems

        Life is sacred. It is a non sequitur to then say that childbirth is a sacred experience. You can’t just make these things up and then call someone close-minded when they demand biblical support.

        So, I’m the one with the “fighting attitude”?!?! Who was it that attacked me claiming I was foolish to suggest I could understand the bond between a mother and child? That was the beginning of this whole debate. And I’m now the one who has a “fighting attitude”? Tsk, tsk. Oh, and don’t forget the snide remark about me not being reformed – was that necessary just because I disagreed with you? It seems to me that YOU are the one who is so determined to be right that you can’t accept that someone won’t agree with you!

        Oh, and my relationship with my wife and family is quite solid.


      15. Ok Glenn, you said that it was far fetched to say that carrying a life inside of you is a sacred experience….that it’s not in the Bible, now you say that it goes without saying that life is sacred. You are the one who keeps flipping and dodging. As for being a reformed believer…I get that you’re not, because the reformed believers that I know have a keen knowledge of the Holiness of God. I think they would understand that the life created in the mother’s womb is a holy and sacred thing because it is an act of God’s sovereignty and any act of God is holy and sacred.


      16. Mary,

        No “flipping and dodging.” Saying that life itself is sacred is not even related to a claim that childbirth is a sacred experience.

        First you said:
        God has created a very sacred experience between Him and the woman carrying life.
        that child birth is between mother, child and God, that the experience is a sacred experience
        the special experience of child birth is a sacred experience

        Show me from Scripture even a HINT that giving birth is a sacred thing according to God. You may consider it a sacred experience to yourself, but to claim that God set it up as a sacred experience has no biblical support. Oh, God gave women a sacred experience but didn’t think men were worthy enough to be given any sort of sacred experience?

        I get that you’re not, because the reformed believers that I know have a keen knowledge of the Holiness of God

        So now if I’m not a Calvinist I can’t have a “keen knowledge of the Holiness of God”? Or is it I don’t have such a knowledge because I disagree that carrying a child and giving birth to it is somehow a sacred experience? Wow, the ad hominems just keep piling up.

        So you are claiming that every birth is an act of God? Wow. Yes it is, in that God allows it and set the whole procreation function in process. But there were only TWO people who God actually created – Adam and Eve. God created the biological process of procreation and is not creating each child.

        Of course if you are a Calvinist, then you likely think every act we do, every word we say, is created and ordained by God, and that even our eye color and hair color were chosen by God, our handicaps and defects were chosen by God to make us exactly the gingerbread man He pulled from the oven. At least that’s how Rick Warren says God works. But I don’t subscribe to such nonsense – but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a “keen knowledge of the Holiness of God.”!


      17. Ok Glenn, it is absolutely pointless to carry on any more conversation with you. We fundamentally disagree about the creation of life. I believe that God is the author of all life and you believe He only created the life of Adam and Eve. This is a HUGE point that we obviously are not going to agree on.


      18. Mary,

        Can you show me from Scripture where God directly created anyone other than Adam and Eve?

        God is the author of all life because he created everything in six days, and part of that creation was the ability of pro-creation.

        If God directly creates everyone, then He’d have to be a sadistic creator to create people with handicaps and genetic malfunctions, etc. But if God did as the Bible says — created one couple with the ability to procreate – then sin coming into the world and corrupting it explains birth defects.

        You can’t set up your theology by beliefs and feelings.


      19. Glenn you are doing exactly that yourself. You don’t want to believe that God is the author of all life because you think if you believe that then you will have to believe that God creates people with disabilities. So you are basing your theology on your feelings about suffering. I am not a Calvinist, I believe in free will. There are many reasons that someone can be born with disabilities that have nothing to do with the fact that it was God who created the life. People and unborn babies suffer because we live in a fallen world and rotten stuff happens. That fact has nothing to do with God being the creator of all life.


      20. But Mary,

        If you say God creates each person individually, then you have God creating defects in the baby!!

        The Bible is as clear as it can be; God created ONLY two people. Everyone else came about by procreation!!!! God created procreation!


      21. God is the creator of life. Absent of God, life, the universe, all things cannot exist. As for a baby in utero, many things can happen AFTER life has been created by God, that can have a detrimental effect on the child. We live in a fallen world that is full of pollution, toxins, many, many things that can effect the development of a fetus. “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and GIVE LIFE.” (emphasis mine) Deut. 32: 39


      22. So, you construe the fact that God gives life to mean that God creates every person as he created Adam and Eve. Everyone is directly created by God.

        WOW. I’ve never seen that taught anywhere in the Bible, in any commentary, or in any church I’ve ever attended.

        You have just invented a new doctrine.

        I wonder why God created procreation?


      23. Procreation is just the mechanics.

        Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

        Is. 44:24 “Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord who made ALL things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself’

        Psm 139:13-16 “For You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.”

        I have not invented anything, it is all written in His word. It cannot be any clearer.


      24. OKAY, Mary, You’re right. These passages have nothing to do with God using a man’s way of understanding to explain to him, has nothing to do with the fact that God used procreation to accomplish His purpose of increasing the human race. No, it literally means that God directly creates every human being, and He decides how he wants that person to look, whether or not He thinks the baby should defects, etc. Yep. These passages prove your claim.

        I’m finished with this discussion. I’ve got better things to do with my time. Have a nice day.


  4. Since my last comment I have researched the Brother’s Grimm. These German brothers were raised Calvinist, but that is the only Christian connection to the fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty. They collected fairy tales and myths from local peasants and gentry. The story of Sleeping Beauty is a story about nature. The beauty being the world, the sleep being winter, the prick being the wakening of spring time….it is a fairy tale that German peasants told to explain the seasons. It has nothing to do with the plan of salvation. It is pure fantasy on the part of this articles writer. Very disappointing as there are so many things you could critique that would have validity, this however, does not.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s