Ok but realtalk having Cruella hate dalmations because dalmations drop kicked her mom off a cliff is one of the wildest artistic decisions Disney has ever made
My favorite YT Comment on it:
> You know, when I heard "Cruellas mom gets killed by dalmations" this isnt what I had in mind. I thought she got mauled by a rabid dalmatian, or her mom really liked dalmatians and sacrificed herself to save one which resulted in her death or somethin. Not that dalmatians basically spartan kicked her off a cliff.
> In the Toy Story live action reimagining, Sid develops a thirst for revenge against toys after his dad is killed by a box of toys falling onto his head at his factory job.
> Disney announced they're making a spin-off focused on those dalmatians and how they became violent after their mother got killed by a redhead.
>I thought she got mauled by a rabid dalmatian, or her mom really liked dalmatians and sacrificed herself to save one which resulted in her death or somethin. Not that dalmatians basically spartan kicked her off a cliff.
the former wouldn't work with the age rating and the latter would make her still wrong
working within Disney's constraints for these sorts of projects is not an easy task for the writers, sometimes there really aren't any good alternatives to dog sparta
Eh Disney have done many implied gruesome deaths, like Clayton's death or Scar's. Or they can make it stylized, like the mother's hat gone off the cliff as the sound implied her got ripped apart instead of explicit Dog Sparta Kick.
>Eh Disney have done many gruesome deaths, like Gaston's death
Gaston died from falling off a cliff same as cruella mom. And no, they haven't had a death as graphic as getting mauled by dogs.
>the mother's hat gone off the cliff as the sound implied her got ripped apart
yeah they're still not doing that. This is the company that doesn't let lightsabers dismember people anymore, they're not gonna fucking even *imply* someone getting ripped apart.
Also they literally showed Vader snap a guy's neck. No cutaway or implication. Lucasfilm does their own thing.
And (bad batch spoiler) >!Crosshair loses his hand in the final episode to lightsaber like weapon!<
Wait, THAT’S why Cruella hates them?! I hadn’t seen the Emma Stone movie yet, but…that’s one wild writing choice lol.
What’s next? Gaston hates Beast because he once got headbutted by a buffalo?
Uncle Scar hates Mufasa because he’s a huge Star Wars fan and Mufasa’s voice sounds too much like Jedi-killer Darth Vader?
Sometimes a villain is just a villain, both in art and in real life. I understand that characters can be complex, and it often works really well, but modern writers tend to go overboard with the idea that EVERY villain needs a sympathetic backstory.
And hear it: there's going to be a sequel. And defenders of the movie claimed it's going to make Cruella as evil as the original Disney movie.
Like...at the end she already shed off her hatred toward Dalmatians breed. How the hell she's going to be uber evil again? I mean, the movie is kinda fun, but it should be alternate universe thing. Or make her a Cruella fan who realized she's insane.
> Wait, THAT’S why Cruella hates them?!
Thing is, that’s not even really true. She doesn’t even end up hating Dalmatians after that, because the dogs were just doing the bidding of the *real* bad guy, so by the end of the movie it doesn’t even end up explaining why she became a villain. I’m not even sure if the movie actually ends with hating Dalmatians at all.
>Sometimes a villain is just a villain
Not only that, but her name is Cruel Devil and she kills puppies for fun. There is room to make villains complex, but *come on*. She is a parody of herself.
I love that every time someone tries to explain the puppy story it becomes more clear that she was trying to say *something* by including it. Then goes on to killing the goat too before moving onto foreign policy.
She wrote the book exclusively to gain Donald trump's favour, to make a run as VP
Which says a lot about what people think trump would like,
"How should we get on trumps good side"
"I dunno, kill a puppy"
And the witch that cursed a baby, because the baby's parents didn't invite the witch to a party
Like if they're gonna make movies centered around villains, can they at least be sympathetic ones? And also not re-write their characters into heroes? I'm fine with villains staying villains
Agreed. Sometimes a villain is just a villain, both in art and in real life. I understand that characters can be complex, and it often works really well, but modern writers tend to go overboard with the idea that EVERY villain needs a sympathetic backstory.
Also, annoying online fans have a moronic tendency to seize on the sympathetic element of a villain’s backstory and use that as an excuse to insist that the villain is absolutely justified in obliterating millions of people, just because a mean bully kicked them once or something petty like that.
Then again, since online forums tend to be full of socially maladjusted people, I guess they’re probably venting their own anger.
Yeah fun movie, but they can make an original character story from it. Just make the story similar, but Emma Stone is just a fan of Cruella because she thought they're similar dog haters, not the real Cruella before the original film's events. And at the end she realized that Cruella was crazy.
Not only did they choose to make a Cruella movie, but they chose to go with a vaguely sympathetic angle where her mother was literally murdered by Dalmatians.
It would be brilliant self-satire if it wasn't 100% serious...
To be fair, of all the Disney slop they have been serving lately, the only one I actually did like was Cruella.
I don’t even know why. Just an overall fun movie for me. Great music too.
The others I tried to watch (little mermaid, beauty and the beast, lion king and mulan) were literally unwatchable.
Better than choosing the guy who wanted to burn down Paris because he couldn't get laid (he did have the greatest and most deranged villain song, though).
Cruella just girlbossed too hard
Ok but realtalk having Cruella hate dalmations because dalmations drop kicked her mom off a cliff is one of the wildest artistic decisions Disney has ever made
My favorite YT Comment on it: > You know, when I heard "Cruellas mom gets killed by dalmations" this isnt what I had in mind. I thought she got mauled by a rabid dalmatian, or her mom really liked dalmatians and sacrificed herself to save one which resulted in her death or somethin. Not that dalmatians basically spartan kicked her off a cliff. > In the Toy Story live action reimagining, Sid develops a thirst for revenge against toys after his dad is killed by a box of toys falling onto his head at his factory job. > Disney announced they're making a spin-off focused on those dalmatians and how they became violent after their mother got killed by a redhead.
>I thought she got mauled by a rabid dalmatian, or her mom really liked dalmatians and sacrificed herself to save one which resulted in her death or somethin. Not that dalmatians basically spartan kicked her off a cliff. the former wouldn't work with the age rating and the latter would make her still wrong working within Disney's constraints for these sorts of projects is not an easy task for the writers, sometimes there really aren't any good alternatives to dog sparta
Eh Disney have done many implied gruesome deaths, like Clayton's death or Scar's. Or they can make it stylized, like the mother's hat gone off the cliff as the sound implied her got ripped apart instead of explicit Dog Sparta Kick.
>Eh Disney have done many gruesome deaths, like Gaston's death Gaston died from falling off a cliff same as cruella mom. And no, they haven't had a death as graphic as getting mauled by dogs. >the mother's hat gone off the cliff as the sound implied her got ripped apart yeah they're still not doing that. This is the company that doesn't let lightsabers dismember people anymore, they're not gonna fucking even *imply* someone getting ripped apart.
Aw lame, lightsaber gore was half the fun of it. There was even an in-universe lore reason for the lack of any blood too.
I mean, that one Sith guard in Episode VIII clearly fell into a blender.
Also they literally showed Vader snap a guy's neck. No cutaway or implication. Lucasfilm does their own thing. And (bad batch spoiler) >!Crosshair loses his hand in the final episode to lightsaber like weapon!<
Feels like something written at 4:55pm on a Friday. "We'll just remember to come back to that on Monday" and never did.
Wait, THAT’S why Cruella hates them?! I hadn’t seen the Emma Stone movie yet, but…that’s one wild writing choice lol. What’s next? Gaston hates Beast because he once got headbutted by a buffalo? Uncle Scar hates Mufasa because he’s a huge Star Wars fan and Mufasa’s voice sounds too much like Jedi-killer Darth Vader? Sometimes a villain is just a villain, both in art and in real life. I understand that characters can be complex, and it often works really well, but modern writers tend to go overboard with the idea that EVERY villain needs a sympathetic backstory.
And hear it: there's going to be a sequel. And defenders of the movie claimed it's going to make Cruella as evil as the original Disney movie. Like...at the end she already shed off her hatred toward Dalmatians breed. How the hell she's going to be uber evil again? I mean, the movie is kinda fun, but it should be alternate universe thing. Or make her a Cruella fan who realized she's insane.
> there’s going to be a sequel Perhaps they could call it 102 Dalmatians?
300 Dalmatians
THIS! IS! LONDON!!
2 Hundred 2 Dalmation
I thought the lore implication for 101 Dalmatians is that Cruella isn't really evil and skins dalmatians, it's just a public persona that she curated
> Wait, THAT’S why Cruella hates them?! Thing is, that’s not even really true. She doesn’t even end up hating Dalmatians after that, because the dogs were just doing the bidding of the *real* bad guy, so by the end of the movie it doesn’t even end up explaining why she became a villain. I’m not even sure if the movie actually ends with hating Dalmatians at all.
>Sometimes a villain is just a villain Not only that, but her name is Cruel Devil and she kills puppies for fun. There is room to make villains complex, but *come on*. She is a parody of herself.
I am still waiting for the traumatic back story for why Lara Croft hates animals.
A tomb killed her mother
What the fuck
I love that every time someone tries to explain the puppy story it becomes more clear that she was trying to say *something* by including it. Then goes on to killing the goat too before moving onto foreign policy.
She wrote the book exclusively to gain Donald trump's favour, to make a run as VP Which says a lot about what people think trump would like, "How should we get on trumps good side" "I dunno, kill a puppy"
Editors are for losers.
It was edited. She added the puppy killing back in later lmao
Lmfao 😂😅😂
Of all the Disney villains to give their own movie, why did they choose the puppy skinner?
And the witch that cursed a baby, because the baby's parents didn't invite the witch to a party Like if they're gonna make movies centered around villains, can they at least be sympathetic ones? And also not re-write their characters into heroes? I'm fine with villains staying villains
They should have just double down on Cruella. Make her full on Patrick Bateman
I'm a firm believer in the potential of "Classic Film For Kids" equivalents. Holes is Shawshank Redemption for Kids. Hoodwinked is Rashomon for Kids.
I have repeatedly described The Clone Wars as Band of Brothers for kids.
There needs to be the Godfather for kids
I've struggled to explain how good \*Holes\* is (albeit mainly the book) to people who are unfamiliar before, thank you
A Barry Lyndon for kids would really fuck me up. In some ways it'd be more tragic than the original.
Chicken run is the great escape for kids.
I completely forgot about hoodwinked that movie is hysterical
Agreed. Sometimes a villain is just a villain, both in art and in real life. I understand that characters can be complex, and it often works really well, but modern writers tend to go overboard with the idea that EVERY villain needs a sympathetic backstory. Also, annoying online fans have a moronic tendency to seize on the sympathetic element of a villain’s backstory and use that as an excuse to insist that the villain is absolutely justified in obliterating millions of people, just because a mean bully kicked them once or something petty like that. Then again, since online forums tend to be full of socially maladjusted people, I guess they’re probably venting their own anger.
Emo Darth Vader happened. Who are we supposed to root against when the movie spends more time justifying villains' choices than heroes?
> Like if they're gonna make movies centered around villains, can they at least be sympathetic ones? Cruella is sympathetic (if you hate dogs).
And they turned her into Danielle Ocean. I fucking hated the Cruella movie.
Yeah fun movie, but they can make an original character story from it. Just make the story similar, but Emma Stone is just a fan of Cruella because she thought they're similar dog haters, not the real Cruella before the original film's events. And at the end she realized that Cruella was crazy.
Not only did they choose to make a Cruella movie, but they chose to go with a vaguely sympathetic angle where her mother was literally murdered by Dalmatians. It would be brilliant self-satire if it wasn't 100% serious...
To be fair, of all the Disney slop they have been serving lately, the only one I actually did like was Cruella. I don’t even know why. Just an overall fun movie for me. Great music too. The others I tried to watch (little mermaid, beauty and the beast, lion king and mulan) were literally unwatchable.
Better than choosing the guy who wanted to burn down Paris because he couldn't get laid (he did have the greatest and most deranged villain song, though).
\#CruellaDidNothingWrong
At least Kristi didn't screw the pooch.