Cruella [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

GentlemanVoodoo

2021-05-29, 12:28 AM

I had to watch this because of my sister and as most have noted the movie is what you would expect as with all live action Disney remakes. Not going to provide spoilers as there are plenty of sources on the net already doing this so here is some take aways I had of the movie:

- The movie is essentially ripping off the Devil Wears Prada in terms of story beats and character development. The 101 Dalmatian bit is just a coat of paint.

- Cruella is Disney’s attempt at having their own family friendly version of Harley Quinn. Same style of quirky humor and all that with a softer edge of violence given it is Disney.

- The movie is not a prequel or anything related to the original movies or the later live actions. This is a retelling of Cruella’s part from this franchise for the modern day.

- At times the comedy in this is cringe worthy. It is as if they are trying to use the humor Peter Sellers brought to the Pink Panther movies but did so badly. Also trying to implement dark humor into it which is largely hit or miss.

- The movie tries to turn essentially a dog murder into a tragic anti-hero that has split personality disorder .

- The movie is two hours long. It didn’t need to be. At most the movie could have everything done in under 90 minutes.

I will note that some of the high points was Emma Stone’s acting who nailed Cruella’s personality down perfectly and also props to the costume designers for making some very spectacular works.

But as to the strengths of the movie there is none and it is about what most of us expected. Another cash grab live action movie by Disney. If those of you enjoy the movie great, glad you did. Though for me it was just another mind numbing movie by Disney not worth the time or money.

hamishspence

2021-05-29, 03:17 AM

- The movie is not a prequel or anything related to the original movies or the later live actions. This is a retelling of Cruella’s part from this franchise for the modern day.

It's still a prequel in a sense with respect to the franchise as a whole, in the sense that

Pongo and Perdy are still puppies and have not grown up yet, Roger and Anita have not married yet.

Given that Cruella is a fashion mogul like in the live action movie, and isn't really that in the books or animated movie as far as one can tell, I'd say it could be considered a broad strokes prequel to the live action movie. That said, it's not like her job is specified in the animated movie, and Roger's being a musician is more an animated movie thing than a live action thing.

Call it a prequel to a movie that does not yet exist, which is a hybrid of previous ones :smallamused:

Thrudd

2021-05-29, 06:08 AM

hamishspence

2021-05-29, 06:30 AM

The only option is to turn the original movie into an unreliable narrator situation...the whole thing was a slanderous fabrication invented by her rivals to scandalize her. She actually just loves dalmations, and people speculated about why she always had them around. Is that the premise of the movie? Did I just guess it without looking at any spoilers? Lol

Not going by TV Tropes's description:

Villain Protagonist: Cruella is introduced with an intense mean streak even in her childhood, and the film focuses on her descent into madness and villainy as she fights her way to the top of the fashion industry, while also frequently hinting at what she'll go on to do in 101 Dalmatians.

Though, at least as of the end of the movie, she doesn't seem to hate them:

Faux Shadow: The Dalmatians knocking Cruella's mother off a cliff is set up as a sort of Freudian Excuse for her to explain why she wants to kill them in future. However, once she figures out the Baroness deliberately murdered her, she shifts all the blame to her and shows no ill will towards them, even adopting the three Dalmatians towards the end.

The Stinger: Roger and Anita, who have yet to meet and fall in love, each receive a Dalmatian puppy (named Pongo and Perdita, respectively) as a gift from Cruella. Roger then sits back at his piano and ends the film writing and singing the "Cruella De Vil" song.

Sounds kinda like a version of the Maleficent movie - showcasing how Maleficent grew from Nice to Definitely Not Nice, only ending before Aurora is born.

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 07:39 AM

Why in the world did anyone think this is a good idea? Of all the Disney villains, I feel that the one who's entire thing was trying to murder dozens of puppies to make a coat is the one that really doesn't need to be given a solo story. The only option is to turn the original movie into an unreliable narrator situation...the whole thing was a slanderous fabrication invented by her rivals to scandalize her. She actually just loves dalmations, and people speculated about why she always had them around. Is that the premise of the movie? Did I just guess it without looking at any spoilers? Lol

{scrubbed}

It is not our job to sell you on a movie and tell you it is a good idea 😌, that is emotional labor and why do you want that emotional labor from strangers?

You are already convinced it is a bad idea, you are not listening with an open mind. And that is okay, people are not required to have an open mind, they are allowed to prejudge situations, and then deal with the consequences.

GloatingSwine

2021-05-29, 09:44 AM

Just read through the Plot synopsis on Wiki and unless I'm missing something it just sounds bad. Also, mid-credits spoiler:
So Pongo and Perdita are siblings? The writers know those two go on to have puppies, right? Squick.

I mean that's pretty common in dog breeding. It's why so many breeds are horrible messes of congenital defects because we've inbred them to preserve desired trats.

Psyren

2021-05-29, 12:40 PM

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 01:12 PM

Not every damn villain needs an origin story. But Malificent made money so here we are. Hard pass from me.

I just don't get what possible purpose there could be (well, besides the obvious cash grab) in making the dog fur coat woman sympathetic.

One of the Five Writers (Tony McNamara) for Cruella did the Favorite from 2018. Likewise there are 30 people in Art Design, Costume, Visual Effects, and Makeup between these two movies.

https://youtu.be/19V1JKO_zu8

The Favorite is not a Queen Anne biopic, in fact it got many of the real world details wrong (Anne did not have rabbits), instead it was its own thing and it was stylized.

Much like how Cruella owning a Fashion label was an invention of the 90s movie, and how in the 1962 cartoon Anita and Cruella were friends from school while Roger was a musician. And in the 1950s book Roger was a financial wizard who got rid of the national debt by arcane accounting trickery and thus the UK government gave him a pension and he is now wealthy.

—————

If you watched The Favorite or that video essay above you will understand what Cruella is doing. It is not about doggy coats.

hamishspence

2021-05-29, 01:41 PM

The Favorite is not a Queen Anne biopic, in fact it got many of the real world details wrong (Anne did not have rabbits), instead it was its own thing and it was stylized.

Much like how Cruella owning a Fashion label was an invention of the 90s movie, and how in the 1962 cartoon Anita and Cruella were friends from school while Roger was a musician.

While they may not have been friends from school, they certainly knew each other from it in the original book.

“Why, that’s Cruella de Vil,” said Mrs Dearly. “We were at school together. She was expelled for drinking ink.”

...

“That car looks like a moving Zebra Crossing,” said Mr. Dearly. “Was your friend’s hair black-and-white when she was at school?”
“She was no friend of mine, I was scared of her,” said Mrs. Dearly. “Yes, her hair was just the same. She had one white plait and one black.”

Psyren

2021-05-29, 01:45 PM

If you watched The Favorite or that video essay above you will understand what Cruella is doing. It is not about doggy coats.

1) I didn't say this movie was about doggy coats. I'm saying we already know where the character is going from here (since, y'know, prequel) and in Cruella's case it's a place so monstrous that nothing they show her going through can possibly justify it. It'd be like making a prequel showing how John Ratcliffe's childhood of abuse spurred him into political stardom.

2) I appreciate the effort, but due to #1 I don't actually care enough to dig into this movie's mythology or the creative vision that sparked the desire to humanize the dog-slaughterer.

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 03:43 PM

Dienekes

2021-05-29, 04:33 PM

Psyren you are making an assumption it is a prequel, I have seen it, I argue that is open ended, much like some Batman movies are connected others are not.

Not all IP is connected in a grand continuity. :smallsigh:

I think the difference here is. Batman is a stock action hero known for episodic adventure/mystery tales with loose continuity, run on the premise that watching a brooding figure in dark clothing kicking butt and saving a city is cool. We sit down to watch a Batman movie, because no matter how much it follows any continuity we're going to get a brooding figure in dark clothing kicking butt and saving the city. Or something incredibly campy. But we're still getting the action adventure stuff down.

Cruella is that b-word that tried to skin dogs.

That's her only claim to recognition. If we're not actually seeing the story of the b-word that tried to skin dogs, why is it even called Cruella?

Which is actually kind of on the other side for me. As I'm usually not one to care for these live action Disney movies (I don't think I've seen any of them). But I actually like watching villain stories, and Cruella being a completely cartoonesque unrepentant sociopath that gets her comeuppance in the end sounds like something I might enjoy watching. More than victim-Maleficent anyway. Though I admit, the focus on fashion does put a damper on it.

But if we're not watching the rise and fall of insane sociopath Cruella the puppy murderer. Well, I don't really get what I'm being sold here.

Rodin

2021-05-29, 04:33 PM

Psyren you are making an assumption it is a prequel, I have seen it, I argue that is open ended, much like some Batman movies are connected others are not.

Not all IP is connected in a grand continuity. :smallsigh:

You keep talking about a grand continuity, but LITERALLY NOBODY is arguing that. They're saying that a movie featuring a character from 101 Dalamatians that takes place prior to the events of 101 Dalmatians which also has other characters from 101 Dalmatians is a prequel. There's no giant corkboard of continuity madness, it's a literal straight line which you have to jump through hoops to justify it not being in the same universe.

Now, I'm not saying anything about the movie's quality. It may be great. After all, I greatly enjoyed Joker, which is a Batman prequel. However, I completely understand someone not wanting to see it because we know where the character ends up. It's a prequel.

Thrudd

2021-05-29, 04:48 PM

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It is not our job to sell you on a movie and tell you it is a good idea 😌, that is emotional labor and why do you want that emotional labor from strangers?

You are already convinced it is a bad idea, you are not listening with an open mind. And that is okay, people are not required to have an open mind, they are allowed to prejudge situations, and then deal with the consequences.
Wow, ok. I was just making a joke. The existence of the film seems like a joke to me. I didn't know anybody had such strong feelings about it. I didn't expect anyone could or would want to defend it, no emotional labor required on my behalf. I'm definitely not going to watch it.

DaOldeWolf

2021-05-29, 05:11 PM

You can say "squick" all you like but incest with dogs is common. Dogs themselves don't care because they're dogs and one will mate with another if they can, while dog breeders use it to increase the likelihood of certain desirable traits are propagated.

I wouldnt reccomend it. That is how dog breed lowly start to show health issues....

As for the film itself, I still dont understand the premise here. Cruella is an intrinsically petty villain. She doesnt have big motives like supposedly trying to better humanity or a tragic example guided by awful circumstances. She is just trying to make an animal coat. That is her big villanous trait. That is what makes her an awful person. She is someone throwing a temper tantrum because someone didnt want to sell her their dogs and then decides to take them by force. I dont understand why are we trying to put into the spotlight such an awful human being. I am open to the possibility of Disney villains that might deserve redemption or compassion but she is definitely not one of them.

I dont know. For me, the whole thing boils down to a premise I just cant follow without ignoring everything that has been established beforehand. Why make a film for people like her? What´s next? Madame Medusa receiving a poverty background to justify child abuse? Sykes being given a bullied background to justify kipnapping? Giving an illness to Rourke´s little sister to justify killing a civiliation? Oh, I know! Lets give Frollo a sheltered background to justify his paranoia and manipulation of others.

hamishspence

2021-05-29, 05:24 PM

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 05:31 PM

Cruella is that b-word that tried to skin dogs.

That's her only claim to recognition. If we're not actually seeing the story of the b-word that tried to skin dogs, why is it even called Cruella?

First that is a culture thing that is time specific, before television continuity was looser, and after the rise of the internet continuity was looser.

But with the rise of VHS, reruns, etc continuity became stronger from let’s say 1970s to 2000s, though you can argue it was really 1990s to 2000s.

Second if we look away from television and movies but to other mediums like books and plays we see far more retelling. When a story is visual we accept a tighter continuity, when it is written or oral we accept a looser continuity, this is not a comprehensive list but here are many retelling books.

“Grendel” by John Gardner: “Beowulf” from the monster’s POV.
“Wide Sargasso Sea” by Jean Rhys: Bertha’s side of things in “Jane Eyre.”
“Finn” by Jon Clinch: Pap Finn’s backstory and take on “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.”
“The Mists of Avalon” by Marion Zimmer Bradley: Women’s versions of the Arthurian legends.
“Mary Reilly” by Valerie Martin: Dr. Jekyll’s maid gives her POV of her employer.
“Ahab’s Wife: The Star-Gazer” by Sena Naslund: More a fleshing out of Ahab as a husband than a retelling of “Moby ****.”
“The Song of Achilles” by Madeline Miller: Achilles’ POV on Homer’s “The Iliad.”
“March” by Geraldine Brooks: Dr. March’s backstory and his take on “Little Women.”
“Wicked” by Gregory Maguire: the Wicked Witch of the West gets her say.
“Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister” by Gregory Maguire: “Cinderella” from her stepsister’s POV.
“Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal” by Christopher Moore: Exactly as the title says — one of the few humorous ones on this list.
“Foe” by J.M. Coetzee: A woman marooned on same island as “Robinson Crusoe” tells her POV to Daniel Foe.
“Longbourn” by Jo Baker: the POV of servants in “Pride and Prejudice.”
“Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead” by Tom Stoppard: A play about Hamlet’s pals’ take on the doings of the Danish court.
“I, Tituba, Black Witch of Salem” by Maryse Conde: The Salem witch scare via the minister’s servant’s POV.
“The Menelaiad” by John Barth: Short story on the Trojan War from Menelaus’ POV.
“The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein” by Theodore Roszak: the girlfriend and then short-term wife of Victor Frankenstein tells all before she’s killed.
“Marley” by Jon Clinch: “A Christmas Carol” via Jacob Marley’s POV.
“The Silence of the Girls” by Pat Barker: “The Iliad” from Briseis’ POV.
“Silver: My Own Tale as Written by Me with a Goodly Amount of Murder” by Edward Chupack: Long John Silver tells his version of “Treasure Island.”
“The Red Tent” by Anita Diamante: Dinah’s POV of the Book of Genesis.
“H: The story of Heathcliff’s Journey Back to Wuthering Heights” by Lin Haire-Sargeant: Heathcliff tells what he did while gone from “Wuthering Heights.”
“Mr. Timothy” by Louis Bayard: Tiny Tim from “A Christmas Carol,” all grown up.
“The Firebrand” by Marion Zimmer Bradley: Cassandra’s POV in “The Iliad.”
“Tiger Lily” by Jodi Lynn Anderson: Peter’s ally tells her side of the Neverland story.
“Snow, Glass, Apples” by Neil Gaiman: Short story from Snow White’s stepmother’s POV.
“Caliban’s Hour” by Tad Williams: Caliban’s version of “The Tempest.”
“The Wind Done Gone” by Alice Randall: A slave’s POV in “Gone With the Wind.”
“The Penelopiad” by Margaret Atwood: “The Odyssey” from Penelope’s POV.
“Jack Maggs” by Peter Carey: Abel Magwitch’s POV in “Great Expectations.”
“Lavinia” by Ursula LeGuin: “The Aeneid” from Mrs. Aeneas’ POV.
“Memnoch the Devil” by Anne Rice: Biblical stories from the devil’s POV. Part of Rice’s “Vampire Chronicles.”
“Capt. Hook: The Adventures of a Notorious Youth” by J.V. Hart: The backstory and POV of Peter Pan’s nemesis.
“Juliet’s Nurse” by Lois Leveen: Background and family POV of Juliet’s nurse, from “Romeo and Juliet.”
“A Tempest” by Aime Cesaire: A play on “The Tempest” from a colonialization POV.
“Shylock’s Daughter” by Mirjam Pressler: “The Merchant of Venice” with a new POV.
“Friday” by Michel Tournier: Friday’s POV of “Robinson Crusoe” and colonialization.
“Perception” by Terri Fleming: Bennet sisters’ take on “Pride and Prejudice.”
“The House of Asterion” by Jorge Luis Borges: Short story on the POV of the Minotaur in the Theseus myth.
“Jane Fairfax” by Joan Aiken: Jane Austen’s “Emma” from the POV of Emma Woodhouse’s childhood friend.
“Anxious Pleasures” by Lance Olsen: Gregor’s family’s version of what happens in Franz Kafka’s novella “Metamorphosis.”
“Heroides” by Ovid: Poems on the POVs of mythic Roman and Greek heroines.
“Cassandra” by Christa Wolf: The Trojan War from the prophetess’ POV.
“Blackhearts” by Nicole Castroman: The Blackbeard story told by another pirate.
“Miranda and Caliban” by Jacqueline Carey: Their POV on Prospero’s island in “The Tempest.”
“Alias Hook” by Lisa Jensen: Backstory of Capt. Hook and his POV on Neverland.

So why is it made? The same reason we see remixes and revivals on Broadway 🎭

My point is this is not just a Batman thing, in fact if it it’s a women* or minority figure we often see more retellings, for retellings stories often recent the Point of View away from a position of power.

*Now men can be powerless, but certain spaces have historically been male coded and thus women entering such a space was seen as a disruption.

In sum nothing new under the sun and asking why it was made is asking the wrong question, you could phrase it as why hasn’t it been made sooner?

DaOldeWolf

2021-05-29, 05:32 PM

The Glyphstone

2021-05-29, 05:37 PM

hamishspence

2021-05-29, 05:39 PM

I figure the "why make Cruella, or Maleficent, or Joker, or Wicked Witch of the West, a protagonist" has the same answer in all cases - charisma. Turning charismatic villains into protagonists works.

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 05:42 PM

I wouldnt reccomend it. That is how dog breed lowly start to show health issues....

As for the film itself, I still dont understand the premise here. Cruella is an intrinsically petty villain. She doesnt have big motives like supposedly trying to better humanity or a tragic example guided by awful circumstances. She is just trying to make an animal coat. That is her big villanous trait. That is what makes her an awful person. She is someone throwing a temper tantrum because someone didnt want to sell her their dogs and then decides to take them by force. I dont understand why are we trying to put into the spotlight such an awful human being. I am open to the possibility of Disney villains that might deserve redemption or compassion but she is definitely not one of them.

I dont know. For me, the whole thing boils down to a premise I just cant follow without ignoring everything that has been established beforehand. Why make a film for people like her? What´s next? Madame Medusa receiving a poverty background to justify child abuse? Sykes being given a bullied background to justify kipnapping? Giving an illness to Rourke´s little sister to justify killing a civiliation? Oh, I know! Lets give Frollo a sheltered background to justify his paranoia and manipulation of others.

Why make a tv show about Tony Sorprano? We make shows about villains all the time. Why is this one moral foundation where no Cruella for that is sacred and another moral foundation where Goodfellas is acceptable to make a movie for and thus not set apart for Mob movies are cool?

People watch movies not just for moral teachings, we watch for many reasons including spectacle. Likewise a villain can be a protagonist and have dozens of woman against society, women against fellow women, women against self, women against nature, women against dogs, etc, etc. Movies are not just about sympathy they can be more than that.

Why do we ask these questions for one type of movie but not another? Why is it a women villian, who wants a fur coat and suddenly we are questioning the motives for a movie most of the people questioning have not seen.

Well I seen it and I like it, if you do not want to see it that is fine. :smallsmile: But most of you are wrong if you prejudge what the movie is about :smallwink:

( Also feel free to wait for it to be free streaming, it is a solid B+, but the movie is fun and we all need an excuse to leave our house if one can do it safely with vaccinations. )

Dienekes

2021-05-29, 06:14 PM

First that is a culture thing that is time specific, before television continuity was looser, and after the rise of the internet continuity was looser.

But with the rise of VHS, reruns, etc continuity became stronger from let’s say 1970s to 2000s, though you can argue it was really 1990s to 2000s.

Second if we look away from television and movies but to other mediums like books and plays we see far more retelling. When a story is visual we accept a tighter continuity, when it is written or oral we accept a looser continuity, this is not a comprehensive list but here are many retelling books.

So why is it made? The same reason we see remixes and revivals on Broadway 🎭

My point is this is not just a Batman thing, in fact if it it’s a women* or minority figure we often see more retellings, for retellings stories often recent the Point of View away from a position of power.

*Now men can be powerless, but certain spaces have historically been male coded and thus women entering such a space was seen as a disruption.

In sum nothing new under the sun and asking why it was made is asking the wrong question, you could phrase it as why hasn’t it been made sooner?

Well a lot of those the villains have something to stand on to redress their opposition when taken in a modern light. Arthur's taking of Camelot. Merlin aiding in the rape of Igerna and his own hounding of Morgan or the Lady of the Lake depending on the telling. Grendel having his land taken by Hrothgar. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have the amusing case where the two antagonists never actually do anything villainous. Hell even the Wicked Witch of the West sees her sister killed and her main antagonist is a charlatan.

But the ones I read at least relate to the story told. They prod at the motivations behind actions and see what angle brought them to make the decisions they've made. The best versions of this usually are the ones where a modern views sees their motivations as somewhat justified, or at least can be turned into a morality tale about revenge. The poorer attempts are when it is not justified and so the story ignores it or tells a completely different story and just uses famous names to get an audience.

As you've described, this sounds a lot like the latter.

Why make a tv show about Tony Sorprano? We make shows about villains all the time. Why is this one moral foundation where no Cruella for that is sacred and another moral foundation where Goodfellas is acceptable to make a movie for and thus not set apart for Mob movies are cool?

People watch movies not just for moral teachings, we watch for many reasons including spectacle.

Just gonna point out, both the Sopranos and Goodfellas have a huge moral component to them.

GloatingSwine

2021-05-29, 06:26 PM

Psyren you are making an assumption it is a prequel, I have seen it, I argue that is open ended, much like some Batman movies are connected others are not.

Not all IP is connected in a grand continuity. :smallsigh:

Ultimately the point about "continuity" is a red herring, whether used as a defense of the story or as a disappearance into the weeds of which version it is in continuity with.

This is clearly a movie which trades on the cultural understanding of the character of Cruella de Vil. It cannot escape from that, and because of that the iconic elements of that character (eg. the desire to skin and wear puppies) are inextricable from it.

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 06:46 PM

Ultimately the point about "continuity" is a red herring, whether used as a defense of the story or as a disappearance into the weeds of which version it is in continuity with.

This is clearly a movie which trades on the cultural understanding of the character of Cruella de Vil. It cannot escape from that, and because of that the iconic elements of that character (eg. the desire to skin and wear puppies) are inextricable from it.

Yes, but I will argue a trace of an image, which has been traced again and again and again so much that only nerds point out where the images were changed ... a formed enough image in the public's mind stands for reinvention and that is the nature of culture and fashion.

How many nerds can point out X imagery comes from John Milton's Paradise Lost? X can be lots of things but lets say the "imagery" of death which is then appropriated by other fictional characters?

Subverting the image, subverting the trace is literally how culture works and it is not unique to this one movie. It happens all the time. And the movie is self-aware enough of what it is doing that it plays with conventions and expectations like a performance.

DaOldeWolf

2021-05-29, 06:57 PM

We could have McLeach's parents killed by a flock of eagles, Clayton's family murdered by gorillas, and a retelling of Mulan where the Mongols only want good grazing and farming land instead of the barren wasteland beyond the wall they have to live in.
XD

I figure the "why make Cruella, or Maleficent, or Joker, or Wicked Witch of the West, a protagonist" has the same answer in all cases - charisma. Turning charismatic villains into protagonists works.
I can see that but I personally believe that there should be purpose behind it. Cruella is a film about Disney villain of a successful franchise from Disney with a cool design in a time where Disney cares the most about making revenue. I don't have high expectations for this to turn out to be good. It's like the live action Lion King. This sounds like a dumb concept. And this is coming from a big fan of Disney.

Why make a tv show about Tony Sorprano? We make shows about villains all the time. Why is this one moral foundation where no Cruella for that is sacred and another moral foundation where Goodfellas is acceptable to make a movie for and thus not set apart for Mob movies are cool?

People watch movies not just for moral teachings, we watch for many reasons including spectacle. Likewise a villain can be a protagonist and have dozens of woman against society, women against fellow women, women against self, women against nature, women against dogs, etc, etc. Movies are not just about sympathy they can be more than that.

Why do we ask these questions for one type of movie but not another? Why is it a women villian, who wants a fur coat and suddenly we are questioning the motives for a movie most of the people questioning have not seen.

Well I seen it and I like it, if you do not want to see it that is fine. :smallsmile: But most of you are wrong if you prejudge what the movie is about :smallwink:

( Also feel free to wait for it to be free streaming, it is a solid B+, but the movie is fun and we all need an excuse to leave our house if one can do it safely with vaccinations. )

I think you are confused with what I said. I specifically mentioned my distaste of creating stories of sympathy and redemption for those undeserving or trying to create backstories to justify awful actions. That is my specific issue with the film.

I wouldn't have any issues if they had picked a villain by circumstance like the butler from Aristocats if they want to write about a potentially sympathetic backstory, or a villain with still unexplored plot elements like Hades (the god killing potion, the different appearance from the other gods, his desire to govern the Olympus and his relation with the Fates) or at the very least, be a complex villain like Frollo for character study material.

Cruella has none of these qualities. There is a lot of 101 Dalmatians media out there. This isn't even the first time she was given backstory. Her motives are simple and petty. And no, she isn't a victim of circumstances. I don't see anything worth a 2hr run film for me.

Maryring

2021-05-29, 07:01 PM

The same could be said of the Wicked Witch of the West in the 1939 movie, as a purely petty villain with no other goal than to steal the Ruby Slippers from Dorothy,

and yet the Wicked book and musical, which turn an unsympathetic villain into a sympathetic one, without ever crossing the line into making them a hero, were very successful.

Wanting to steal back an item that was looted off the corpse of your sister by her (accidental, but still) killer before the corpse was even cold is a lot easier to make sympathetic than a dog killer whose defining trait is wanting to kill puppies to make a fashion coat. Especially since the movie gave the Wicked Witch very few evil things that she does on screen.

And has already been said. A Cruella movie sells itself by stating the question "Do you want to watch the movie about why the puppy killer became a puppy killer?" It's completely fair to answer that question with "no, not at all, and why on earth would I want to do that?"

Kitten Champion

2021-05-29, 07:02 PM

I figure the "why make Cruella, or Maleficent, or Joker, or Wicked Witch of the West, a protagonist" has the same answer in all cases - charisma. Turning charismatic villains into protagonists works.

Apparently Cruella is quite popular. Like, she wins favourite villain polls among fans.

Personally, she's one of the most one-dimensional and deeply unsympathetic of all the Disney villains and doesn't stand high on my "make a solo live-action film about them"-list I could plausibly make. However, yeah, on metric of sheer entertainment she's easily the most memorable thing about the 101 Dalmatians. With a creative design, some great animated movements and facial expressions, and Betty Lou Gerson's performance she definitely stands out.

So I can see why she's popular, but on the other hand it's a... difficult character to write for one of these. Like, I certainly couldn't do it. I'd need to remake her into something like Nicole Kidman's character in Paddington, I guess.

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 07:02 PM

Cruella has none of these qualities. There is a lot of 101 Dalmatians media out there. This isn't even the first time she was given backstory. Her motives are simple and petty. And no, she isn't a victim of circumstances. I don't see anything worth a 2hr run film for me.

Who says she is a victim of circumstances?

Also laughing at another post that I can't explain without spoilers, so here is your spoiler block.

Wanting to steal back an item that was looted off the corpse of your sister by her (accidental, but still) killer before the corpse was even cold is a lot easier to make sympathetic than a dog killer whose defining trait is wanting to kill puppies to make a fashion coat. Especially since the movie gave the Wicked Witch very few evil things that she does on screen.

*whistles*

DaOldeWolf

2021-05-29, 07:10 PM

Who says she is a victim of circumstances?

No one is which is precisely my point. Since there is no depth to her character, no grand motivation, no big unexplored elements to her or even a narrative reason within the story that might justify her actions (like being the victim of circumstance), there is nothing especially new or interesting to explore here.

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 07:14 PM

No one is which is precisely my point. Since there is no depth to her character, no grand motivation, no big unexplored elements to her or even a narrative reason within the story that might justify her actions (like being the victim of circumstance), there is nothing especially new or interesting to explore here.

Explain Chicago (2003) ?

DaOldeWolf

2021-05-29, 07:38 PM

Explain Chicago (2003) ?

Not sure what you want me to explain?

Chicago isn't a sequel or prequel centered around the villain to any franchise (as far a as I know). Context here is important. This isn't a random film about a random character. This is a film trying to give a sympathetic and justifying backstory to a Disney franchise villain that after this movie will try to go on a puppy killing (and stealing) spree (more than once depending on what might be considered canon).

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 08:03 PM

Not sure what you want me to explain?

Chicago isn't a sequel or prequel centered around the villain to any franchise (as far a as I know). Context here is important. This isn't a random film about a random character. This is a film trying to give a sympathetic and justifying backstory to a Disney franchise villain that after this movie will try to go on a puppy killing (and stealing) spree (more than once depending on what might be considered canon).

You are keeping making the claim of Disney wanting a “sympathetic and justifying backstory”, and I am disagreeing with this claim. :smallwink:

Psyren

2021-05-29, 08:20 PM

Cruella is that b-word that tried to skin dogs.

That's her only claim to recognition. If we're not actually seeing the story of the b-word that tried to skin dogs, why is it even called Cruella?

You keep talking about a grand continuity, but LITERALLY NOBODY is arguing that. They're saying that a movie featuring a character from 101 Dalamatians that takes place prior to the events of 101 Dalmatians which also has other characters from 101 Dalmatians is a prequel. There's no giant corkboard of continuity madness, it's a literal straight line which you have to jump through hoops to justify it not being in the same universe.

Exactly. It's not like she's Lex Luthor and you can tell a wide variety of stories in the Cruella mythos. She's known for one key act of villainy, and if you remove that - which you pretty much have to do if you want her to be any shade of sympathetic - you might as well start with an original character. But hey, there's no money in that.

Now, I'm not saying anything about the movie's quality. It may be great. After all, I greatly enjoyed Joker, which is a Batman prequel. However, I completely understand someone not wanting to see it because we know where the character ends up. It's a prequel.

The difference with Joker is twofold: first it's about a guy who clearly is not the Joker we know (among many other indicators, he's contemporary with Thomas rather than Bruce), and second Joker himself is far more of a concept or a title than "Cruella" could ever be. You can have a Joker origin about an unconnected character because Joker is an idea - there is no one highly specific act of villainy that causes the idea of Joker to implode if removed. Cruella meanwhile is... well, Dienekes summed her up.

You are keeping making the claim of Disney wanting a “sympathetic and justifying backstory”, and I am disagreeing with this claim. :smallwink:

You do know what protagonists are right?

Even Infinity War had to make Thanos sympathetic to a degree, because he was the protagonist of that film.
Even Death Note had to make Light Yagami sympathetic to a degree as well, because he was the protagonist of that series.

No sympathy = failed protagonist, regardless of their alignment.

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Gladly :smallannoyed:

Thrudd

2021-05-29, 08:25 PM

You are keeping making the claim of Disney wanting a “sympathetic and justifying backstory”, and I am disagreeing with this claim. :smallwink:

So you're saying Disney is intentionally making a movie about an unsympathetic psychopath, and the audience is meant to revile her throughout?

Willie the Duck

2021-05-29, 08:42 PM

Yes, but I will argue a trace of an image, which has been traced again and again and again so much that only nerds point out where the images were changed ... a formed enough image in the public's mind stands for reinvention and that is the nature of culture and fashion.

How many nerds can point out X imagery comes from John Milton's Paradise Lost? X can be lots of things but lets say the "imagery" of death which is then appropriated by other fictional characters?
You'd be surprised. If you know, then likely the other (nerds is a self-included term, yes?) nerds do too.

Subverting the image, subverting the trace is literally how culture works and it is not unique to this one movie. It happens all the time. And the movie is self-aware enough of what it is doing that it plays with conventions and expectations like a performance.
Yes. Re-imaging, re-interpreting, and re-framing a story or concept is something that happens all the time. Oftentimes playing with who is the villain or how villainous they are is a major way to change the story around. And that's what this story is -- it is Maleficent, or maybe the upcoming Loki (another character we saw being absolutely horrific somehow becoming charmingly roguish through reinterpretation) series. I don't see anything about this one that is specifically different.

That said, people are correct that the draw of this movie (like Maleficent or Loki) is 'come see what we've done with this character for whom you already have strong feelings.' It is perfectly reasonable for someone's response to be 'that doesn't interest me.' I think on its own merits and if the movie does not owe anything to an existing continuity, it works fine enough as a delightful villain romp similar to the recent Joker movie, it's just arguable if that's the case.

The more I think about it, the more I think this movie is most similar to Maleficent. It to, had very little in ways of arguing why anyone would want it... but if you're okay with the premise, is not a bad movie.

Ramza00

2021-05-29, 08:45 PM

You do know what protagonists are right?

Even Infinity War had to make Thanos sympathetic to a degree, because he was the protagonist of that film.
Even Death Note had to make Light Yagami sympathetic to a degree as well, because he was the protagonist of that series.

No sympathy = failed protagonist, regardless of their alignment.

Protagonist is a Greek word made famous in Aristotle’s poetics where he was comparing different types of plays several hundred years old at the time of Aristotle’s writing.

Protagonist merely means first actor in Greek in a literal sense, and the first actor speaks about his motivations to the audience “off screen” where the action pauses in certain type of stories that Aristotle was talking about.

————

And this literally happens where Cruella is the omniscient narrator telling her backstory when she was 13 before time traveling to age 25. We think at first Cruella the narrator takes place between the transition from Act 1 to Act 2, but it is actually the transition from Act 2 to Act 3 and Cruella learns a bit of trusty that recontextualizes all the scenes that occur prior. Act 2 Cruella thought she knew everything, but Act 3 knew far more, and at the start of Act 3 she is no longer the omniscient narrator for her story is not finished and stuff then happens.

So yes I know what protagonist means :smallamused:

————

I do not know what you mean by Sympathize or the similar word Empathize for those words are a washed from meanings and they came from two different language traditions, and they have gained additional meanings since then.

Rudolf Lotze coined Empathy (this is contested) with Sympathy being far older in English and how people used the word Sympathy is not constant. What Hume and Smith meant by Sympathy is sometimes Empathy in modern lingo other times Sympathy and it was already a 200+ year old English word before those two moral philosophers talked about it and a dozen different famous people after them from poets to psychologists to other philosophers.

————

Can we follow the train of logic of Cruella, yes. It all makes sense from her perspective as the story unfolds. Can we support all her choices she makes? The answer is no but some will say yes. Is Cruella aware of her actions and how it affects other people the answer is very much yes.

Do you want more of a list? :smalltongue:

So you're saying Disney is intentionally making a movie about an unsympathetic psychopath, and the audience is meant to revile her throughout?

Hardly. I am saying people are human and still can be villainous.

But also cheer and see something as vile or wicked at the same time. These are two separate emotions and you can feel them at the same time much like you can feel joy at another person good or bad fortune.

That said, people are correct that the draw of this movie (like Maleficent or Loki) is 'come see what we've done with this character for whom you already have strong feelings.' It is perfectly reasonable for someone's response to be 'that doesn't interest me.' I think on its own merits and if the movie does not owe anything to an existing continuity, it works fine enough as a delightful villain romp similar to the recent Joker movie, it's just arguable if that's the case.

I am fine with people not wanting to see it. But let me have my self absorb fun needling people who are also self-absorbed when they ask a question like I do not understand why something exists? And then expect things exist to please their sensibilities.

We live in the world of abundance, thinking things should own flatter them and make them happy is missing how vast this world is.

Put another way from another Disney Property

https://steemitimages.com/DQmVhUzYQ9JmsToNCJzL5LUG8FfAyctRuiaW27jtjoK2Lv9/tumblr_okc9ut7b7b1v2lbnko1_500.gif

When someone begs the question, do not be surprised when someone points out the logic is circular and you just want to assert your opinion in faux objectivity.

Subjectivity is good, everyone embrace it please :smallcool:

Willie the Duck

2021-05-29, 09:14 PM

I am fine with people not wanting to see it. But let me have my self absorb fun needling people who are also self-absorbed when they ask a question like I do not understand why something exists? And then expect things exist to please their sensibilities.
I don't think people have been doing that, they have been saying that this thing does not please their sensibilities. They have not been demanding it do so.

We live in the world of abundance, thinking things should own flatter them and make them happy is missing how vast this world is.
People haven't been saying that thing should flatter them and make them happy, they've been saying they don't think they would like a movie, nothing more or less.

Put another way from another Disney Property

https://steemitimages.com/DQmVhUzYQ9JmsToNCJzL5LUG8FfAyctRuiaW27jtjoK2Lv9/tumblr_okc9ut7b7b1v2lbnko1_500.gif
Wow. Physician, heal thyself.

When someone begs the question, do not be surprised when someone points out the logic is circular and you just want to assert your opinion in faux objectivity.
Exactly who is the individual you think has declared their position to be the objective one?

Subjectivity is good, everyone embrace it please :smallcool:
Again, physician heal thyself.

Psyren

2021-05-30, 02:35 AM

So yes I know what protagonist means :smallamused:

Knowing the etymology/dictionary definition of the word, and what makes one effective, are two different things.

Disney knew they should at least try for sympathy when they threw in the unintentionally hilarious "dalmatians killed my mom you guys!" Start of Darkness scene into this movie - which is being roundly and rightfully mocked and ridiculed. (https://www.themarysue.com/cruellas-hilarious-origin-story-launches-101-dal-meme-tions/) I don't blame them for trying, but again, this just isn't the character that kind of expansion can really work on.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 08:23 AM

Knowing the etymology/dictionary definition of the word, and what makes one effective, are two different things.

Disney knew they should at least try for sympathy when they threw in the unintentionally hilarious "dalmatians killed my mom you guys!" Start of Darkness scene into this movie - which is being roundly and rightfully mocked and ridiculed. (https://www.themarysue.com/cruellas-hilarious-origin-story-launches-101-dal-meme-tions/) I don't blame them for trying, but again, this just isn't the character that kind of expansion can really work on.

You have not watched the movie yet you think you know a thing. I already said the movie is not about that, like at all.

Keltest

2021-05-30, 08:34 AM

You have not watched the movie yet you think you know a thing. I already said the movie is not about that, like at all.

If the question is "Why would anybody ever want to go see this?" then answering with "you arent allowed to make any judgements about it at all" is just going to be interpreted as "so it has no redeeming values and we shouldnt go see it."

I think you need to tone down the hostility about 3 notches here friend, because its really getting in the way of your point. Youve been taking criticism of the movie bizarrely personally since the start, even by the standards of somebody defending something they liked. If somebody is misjudging the movie, dont just tell them theyre wrong and to get out, explain what, exactly theyre getting wrong, and why the difference matters.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 08:41 AM

If the question is "Why would anybody ever want to go see this?" then answering with "you arent allowed to make any judgements about it at all" is just going to be interpreted as "so it has no redeeming values and we shouldnt go see it."

I think you need to tone down the hostility about 3 notches here friend. Youve been taking criticism of the movie bizarrely personally since the start, even by the standards of somebody defending something they liked. If somebody is misjudging the movie, dont just tell them theyre wrong and to get out, explain what, exactly theyre getting wrong, and why the difference matters.

The original question why was this ever made, like why does this exist, why did this get greenlight?

Which is a different question than why would I want to go see this. Yes I am taking this personally for no one asks why Batman V Superman exists, or horror, or romance comedies, etc. The question is offensive at its core. If you do not want to go see it fine, but please do not pretend one has a faux objectivity of what is good or bad.

Doing so makes a person speak out of place.

Keltest

2021-05-30, 08:44 AM

The original question why was this ever made, like why does this exist, why did this get greenlight?

Which is a different question than why would I want to go see this. Yes I am taking this personally for no one asks why Batman V Superman exists, or horror, or romance comedies, etc. The question is offensive at its core. If you do not want to go see it fine, but please do not pretend one has a faux objectivity of what is good or bad.

Doing so makes a person speak out of place.

The two questions are basically the same. "Why does this exist?" "Who is this made for?" "What is the thought process behind deciding this needs to be a thing?" "Why would anybody want to go see it?" "What about this did they think was good?"

Theyre all going to have the same answer.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 08:47 AM

The two questions are basically the same. "Why does this exist?" "Who is this made for?" "What is the thought process behind deciding this needs to be a thing?" "Why would anybody want to go see it?" "What about this did they think was good?"

Theyre all going to have the same answer.

Can you imagine the question being rude? Yes or No?

Sholos

2021-05-30, 08:48 AM

I suspect the answer to, "Why was this made?" is as simple as, "Disney thought people would pay to see it, regardless of quality." I don't think the main branch of Disney has all that much faith in its audience.

Keltest

2021-05-30, 08:51 AM

Can you imagine the question being rude? Yes or No?

Only in the sense that a bad review is "rude." The movie is an inanimate thing, it cant feel offended. In this context it may be a bit scornful, but only because the answer is suspected to "nothing. There is no good reason why anybody would want to see this and it has few, if any redeeming features as a movie."

But every moviemaker or author needs to be able to answer that question well. Its a key question to the success of your product.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 08:56 AM

Only in the sense that a bad review is "rude." The movie is an inanimate thing, it cant feel offended. In this context it may be a bit scornful, but only because the answer is suspected to "nothing. There is no good reason why anybody would want to see this and it has few, if any redeeming features as a movie."

But every moviemaker or author needs to be able to answer that question well. Its a key question to the success of your product.

Can you believe that is one way to see the world but it is not the only way? That concepts like representation matters not just with actual people (like how you present real people like LGBT people) but also genre matters where one thing affects another thing, likewise how representation matters with how people move through society and interact with other people?

Can you believe that, by which I mean can you see that? (I do not believe we can separate belief from seeing, they are linked, what makes sense uses organizational principles one of which is belief in order to bring order to shapes and other aesthetics.)

—————

Put another way would you ask a political movie, why did someone greenlight you?

Would doing so be a rude question?

Keltest

2021-05-30, 08:58 AM

Can you believe that is one way to see the world but it is not the only way? That concepts like representation matters not just with actual people (like how you present real people like LGBT people) but also genre matters where one thing affects another thing, likewise how representation matters with how people move through society and interact with other people?

Can you believe that, by which I mean can you see that? (I do not believe we can separate belief from seeing, they are linked, what makes sense uses organizational principles one of which is belief in order to bring order to shapes and other aesthetics.)

—————

Put another way would you ask a political movie, why did someone greenlight you?

Would doing so be a rude question?

Yes, i absolutely would. And i would expect a pretty good answer from a political movie, since theyre inherently going to be dated and likely poorly received by a portion of the audience, implying some deep need to get this particular movie out now.

And before you try and rephrase this another dozen ways that dont change my answer, how about we just skip to the part where you try and describe what actually makes this movie worth watching? Because your resistance to this is increasingly making me suspicious that you cant actually defend it being any good and just dont want to admit to enjoying something that you know isnt very good.

Rodin

2021-05-30, 09:04 AM

Can you imagine the question being rude? Yes or No?

No, I really can't.

The thread has brought up why movies of this type are made - e.g Wicked, Maleficient, etc. There can be value in going back and looking at the motivations of villains who were not deeply explored in the original work, especially in the case of the Oz universe where there is a lot of underlying lore that most people are unaware of. Heck, it's what the Star Wars prequels should have done instead of spending all their time on the Clone Wars.

I've still yet to see a reason why Cruella of all people was picked out of the Disney canon other than "she's popular". Her motivation is shallow and evil - she's a rich person who wants a puppy fur coat, and if that means stealing and slaughtering a family's pets so be it. There isn't a lot to explore with that character, and the base premise of "Dalmations killed my parents" is laughable on its face. For the record, I feel the same way about Maleficient - she doesn't have enough of a personality in the original work to merit a movie exploring her dark and troubled past.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 09:05 AM

Yes, i absolutely would. And i would expect a pretty good answer from a political movie, since theyre inherently going to be dated and likely poorly received by a portion of the audience, implying some deep need to get this particular movie out now.

And before you try and rephrase this another dozen ways that dont change my answer, how about we just skip to the part where you try and describe what actually makes this movie worth watching? Because your resistance to this is increasingly making me suspicious that you cant actually defend it being any good and just dont want to admit to enjoying something that you know isnt very good.

Do you understand what punk is, and how it rejects authoritarian “normative” frames one person puts onto another and say you are only allowed to be acceptable in a way that I find accustomed too?

Hint this is one of the themes about this movie. Whether a baby girl who is born with two hair colors is a freak and how should society treat her, and is she the one who is wrong or is society / some people in society the true thing which is wrong?

She was born this way, should she change to make other people comfortable, is she taking up the wrong kind of space?

Hell she should have never been born at all some say? Just like her movie should never be made at all?

Keltest

2021-05-30, 09:09 AM

Do you understand what punk is, and how it rejects authoritarian “normative” frames one person puts onto another and say you are only allowed to be acceptable in a way that I find accustomed too?

Hint this is one of the themes about this movie. Whether a baby girl who is born with two hair colors is a freak and how should society treat her, and is she the one who is wrong or is society / some people in society the true thing which is wrong?

She was born this way, should she change to make other people comfortable, is she taking up the wrong kind of space?

Hell she should have never been born at all some say? Just like her movie should never be made at all?

If youre attempting to sell me on the good qualities of the movie, you are not doing a terribly good job. A movie's theme isnt its quality. Is it a good movie? Would i want to watch it? Does it execute the theme well?

Current reviews seem to largely say "no, it does not, its laughably bad."

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 09:12 AM

Keltest

2021-05-30, 09:16 AM

From Rotten Tomatoes

CRUELLA
PG-13 2021, Comedy/Kids and family, 2h 14m
73%
TOMATOMETER
258 Reviews
97%
AUDIENCE SCORE
1,000+ Verified Ratings

73% of critics gave it a positive rating and not a negative rating (27%)

Cool! I didnt know that! But youre still dancing around my question, and that tells me a lot more about the movie than critic reviews do.

Kareeah_Indaga

2021-05-30, 09:53 AM

Cool! I didnt know that! But youre still dancing around my question, and that tells me a lot more about the movie than critic reviews do.

+1 this. I think I'll be avoiding Cruella and find something else to watch for my first trek back to theaters.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 09:56 AM

Cool! I didnt know that! But youre still dancing around my question, and that tells me a lot more about the movie than critic reviews do.

And I believe it is not my job to sell things to you, it is literally one of my aesthetics, see the punk comment posts before. I told you I liked it, I told you some of the reasons why I liked it, but I think we become less kind when we feel obligated to conform to other people’s expectations , likewise we think things are meant for another person.

This movie is not for everyone, but I liked it, I am not going to pretend my taste is the same as yours. Some people like reese's pieces, others sour warheads. Telling someone that is not compatible with their taste they must like this is a form of smothering.

It is a movie about a person who is born sour, who is born different, and whether she is allowed to take up space. Estella, the main character is both cruel and kind. And in the first 10 minutes of the movie the mom she loves gives her a nickname Cruella whenever she does something that makes another person uncomfortable even if Estella did nothing wrong, she just did something that was not expected of a girl who is born 1955 and thus was grown in the 1960s.

So does the sour kid who is not being cruel, does she try to become sweet as her mother would have wanted, or does she embrace her sourness even if this will piss some people off? Oh yeah it is written by the guy who did The Favorite (see Oscar Nominees of 2019 for 2018 movies), has some fabulous actresses, great aesthetics, etc, etc.

—————

As another person not Cruella says in the movie “I like to say that ‘normal’ is the cruelest insult of them all, and at least I never get that.” [ the subtext is this person would never be accepted as normal, society will always judge them , so embrace it. A joy built from a deep sadness and neglect. Turning a great evil taking it and forging it into good. ]

Keltest

2021-05-30, 09:58 AM

And I believe it is not my job to sell things to you, it is literally one of my aesthetics, see the punk comment posts before. I told you I liked it, I told you some of the reasons why I liked it, but I think we become less kind when we feel obligated to conform to other people’s expectations , likewise we think things are meant for another person.

This movie is not for everyone, but I liked it, I am not going to pretend my taste is the same as yours. Some people like reese's pieces, others sour warheads. Telling someone that is not compatible with their taste they must like this is a form of smothering.

It is a movie about a person who is born sour, who is born different, and whether she is allowed to take up space. Estella, the main character is both cruel and kind. And in the first 10 minutes of the movie the mom she loves gives her a nickname Cruella whenever she does something that makes another person uncomfortable even if Estella did nothing wrong, she just did something that was not expected of a girl who is born 1955 and thus was grown in the 1960s.

So does the sour kid who is not being cruel, does she try to become sweet as her mother would have wanted, or does she embrace her sourness even if this will piss some people off? Oh yeah it is written by the guy who did The Favorite (see Oscar Nominees of 2019 for 2018 movies), has some fabulous actresses, great aesthetics, etc, etc.

—————

As another person not Cruella says in the movie “I like to say that ‘normal’ is the cruelest insult of them all, and at least I never get that.” [ the subtext is this person would never be accepted as normal, society will always judge them , so embrace it. A joy built from a deep sadness and neglect. Turning a great evil taking it and forging it into good. ]

I mean, you started a thread about it and you get salty when people say they arent interested in seeing it. Maybe its not literally your job to sell us on the movie, but if youre going to start talking down on people for not seeing it, then it behooves you to make seeing it seem like a good thing and not an utter waste of our time and money.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 10:03 AM

I mean, you started a thread about it and you get salty when people say they arent interested in seeing it. Maybe its not literally your job to sell us on the movie, but if youre going to start talking down on people for not seeing it, then it behooves you to make seeing it seem like a good thing and not an utter waste of our time and money.

We disagree here, but this salty back and forth was about something I see as rude, and you do not see as rude.

Does a child with black and white hair need to justify her existence to her teachers or other people? What if the mere idea of this offends them? It is about expectation.

If you do not see the purpose and you come into a thread saying I do not see the purpose of a thing, and you get into a back and forth, what do you owe the other person for the time you are wasting. Why is it only one direction, this “expectation?”

If the question is not being rude, shouldn’t the question be seen as asking for a favor and thus understanding you are either being put into a debt for another, that you are asking for a kindness not as being kind but you expect someone else to be generous with their time?

Keltest

2021-05-30, 10:08 AM

We disagree here, but this salty back and forth was about something I see as rude, and you do not see as rude.

Does a child with black and white hair need to justify her existence to her teachers or other people? What if the mere idea of this offends them? It is about expectation.

If you do not see the purpose and you come into a thread saying I do not see the purpose of a thing, and you get into a back and forth, what do you owe the other person for the time you are wasting. Why is it only one direction, this “expectation?”

If the question is not being rude, shouldn’t the question be seen as asking for a favor and thus understanding you are either being put into a debt for another, that you are asking for a kindness not as being kind but you expect someone else to be generous with their time?

Im going to be frank, im having trouble following you here. Youre waxing poetic about philosophy or something, and i just want to know what makes the darn movie worth watching. You obviously think youre making a point of some kind, but youre trying to get so fancy with your language and analogies that you arent actually communicating anything.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 10:16 AM

Im going to be frank, im having trouble following you here. Youre waxing poetic about philosophy or something, and i just want to know what makes the darn movie worth watching. You obviously think youre making a point of some kind, but youre trying to get so fancy with your language and analogies that you arent actually communicating anything.

It is fun for all the ways that words can not capture. Stuff with the eye and ear. Lots of great aesthetics, lots of good banter, needle drops with music, knowing how to do special effects to feel organic (have you ever seen the first episode of Sherlock how people are texting and we see the words in a way that feels organic in the background, stuff like that but different forms of this idea very “pop art.”) Punk aesthetics, Camp aesthetics, etc.

Words will not capture it though for these are the things about the eye and ear and presentation is what causing things to stand out and words can not capture the act of good presentation.

You either trust me or do not :smallsmile:

Keltest

2021-05-30, 10:20 AM

It is fun for all the ways that words can not capture. Stuff with the eye and ear. Lots of great aesthetics, lots of good banter, needle drops with music, knowing how to do special effects to feel organic (have you ever seen the first episode of Sherlock how people are texting and we see the words in a way that feels organic in the background, stuff like that but different forms of this idea very “pop art.”) Punk aesthetics, Camp aesthetics, etc.

Words will not capture it though for these are the things about the eye and ear and presentation is what causing things to stand out and words can not capture the act of good presentation.

You either trust me or do not :smallsmile:

I trust you in the sense that its an honest review, but frankly "somebody whose tastes differ than mine thinks its aesthetically interesting" isnt a strong selling point for me either. Certainly not one strong enough to make up for the inherent deficiencies outlined earlier in the thread.

Rodin

2021-05-30, 10:37 AM

I trust you in the sense that its an honest review, but frankly "somebody whose tastes differ than mine thinks its aesthetically interesting" isnt a strong selling point for me either. Certainly not one strong enough to make up for the inherent deficiencies outlined earlier in the thread.

Indeed.

To return to Joker, there's a lot I could wax poetic about in how the movie is shot and the atmosphere the director achieved. But that isn't a reason to see the movie. You go to see it because Joaquin Phoenix puts on a stellar performance as a man being driven insane by the pressures society is placing on him. It answers the question "Who is this made for" readily - Batman fans who are interested in an alternate take on how the Joker came to be, as well as people who are drawn to dark character studies. I went to go see it with my father, and the only Batman he's seen is the Adam West version. He decided to go see it without knowing the Batman connection. Remove the Batman references and it remains an excellent movie in its own right.

The review summaries for Cruella I see on RT all say the same thing - Emma Stone and Emma Thompson chewing the scenery at each other is fun, and the movie is pretty to look at.

Starbuck_II

2021-05-30, 12:59 PM

Indeed.

To return to Joker, there's a lot I could wax poetic about in how the movie is shot and the atmosphere the director achieved. But that isn't a reason to see the movie. You go to see it because Joaquin Phoenix puts on a stellar performance as a man being driven insane by the pressures society is placing on him. It answers the question "Who is this made for" readily - Batman fans who are interested in an alternate take on how the Joker came to be, as well as people who are drawn to dark character studies. I went to go see it with my father, and the only Batman he's seen is the Adam West version. He decided to go see it without knowing the Batman connection. Remove the Batman references and it remains an excellent movie in its own right.

The review summaries for Cruella I see on RT all say the same thing - Emma Stone and Emma Thompson chewing the scenery at each other is fun, and the movie is pretty to look at.

I mean, for Joker, he was driven insane because he couldn't afford more medication. Not just because of society.
I think when he murdered by self defense, he found he liked it as well.
He was no longer the weak man society made him feel, he was only weak if he allowed himself to be.

Rodin

2021-05-30, 03:20 PM

I mean, for Joker, he was driven insane because he couldn't afford more medication. Not just because of society.
I think when he murdered by self defense, he found he liked it as well.
He was no longer the weak man society made him feel, he was only weak if he allowed himself to be.

I would say not being able to afford medication for your mental illness because your mental illness stops you from getting a good job is entirely society driven. Failing to get society to care about him enough to medicate him is a major driving force behind his actions.

SuperPanda

2021-05-30, 03:41 PM

I've still yet to see a reason why Cruella of all people was picked out of the Disney canon other than "she's popular". Her motivation is shallow and evil - she's a rich person who wants a puppy fur coat, and if that means stealing and slaughtering a family's pets so be it. There isn't a lot to explore with that character.

So, I haven't seen the movie - I watched the Pitch meeting and I know for a fact that they didn't go into what I'm about to put down - but going off the source material (not the Disney source material) - there actually is some incredibly weird potential to play with.

Curella De Vil is not just a fun pun name, in the original book her family house is known as Hell Hall and is decorated to resemble a fashionable and comfortable layer of Dante's Inferno, there are rumors that her family are direct decedents of the devil, and her name is a literary allusion to Count DeVille who turns out to be a psuedonym sometimes used by Dracula in Stroker's novel. She also got kicked out of school for drinking ink.

She apparently had a major affinity for fashion and heat - over-using pepper extensively. She was also a very interesting figure in her personal life for a character set in the 50s in Brittan having convinced a wealthy furrier to marry her, take her name, and to dote on her.

her personal color scheme is Black and White and she leans into that Hard

Lastly we have her defining motivation: To make a puppy fur coat because she thinks it would be fashionable and her willingness to do anything to "look good."

----

The visual theme of the character is black and while, her name essentially means "Cruel Devil" and she is obsessed with beauty.

If I were exploring this character's back story I'd made someone from an obviously troubled childhood, make them someone who does not process social and emotional information well and has an overly simplified view of the world. Make her have a need to define things as black or white, good or evil, beautiful or ugly - and give her a sense of never fitting in - of not belonging to either place. This sets up her obsession with black and white patterns.

Have dogs dislike her and make that be one of the things she simply cannot understand.

Make her obsession with fashion linked to a deep belief from her childhood trauma that "beautiful = good" and therefore make it part of a misguided effort to become a good person - because if she could only be pretty enough she would be no longer be a cruel devil.

Maker her somewhat mean and soft-spoken husband genuinely care for her and be constantly making her fur coats and similar things because he wants her to see herself as beautiful - and therefore good - but not realizing that he was feeding the problem.

At the end has she been redeemed? No, she has not.

Can she be made interesting and compelling without making her any less villainous? Yes.

At the end will people believe that she would go on to skin and wear puppies? Very much yes.

Would it make the "human heroes" of the original animated story's action of monetizing a song mocking and berating her as evil cruel in retrospect? Yeah, but it already was if you think about it.

That story wouldn't get green-lit but Disney because it all kinds of risky. It would make Cruella into a tragic villain - a person who wants to be good and thinks they are going about doing so, but it so deeply damaged and misunderstood that the only way the world can understand her is to label her as a Cruel Devil.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 04:11 PM

What SuperPanda said, there are multiple ways to do it.

How the movie does color theory is it shifting from red represented by her mom’s gift to her with the Estella personality, the necklace, the Estella mask such as the burn red hair color and her natural blood.

While Cruella is Black and White but also we see throughout the movie black and white with a hint of red until the very end. These 3 colors place with each other for life is not only A or B but B accents A when you were both and vice versa.

Traab

2021-05-30, 04:36 PM

Thrudd

2021-05-30, 07:12 PM

Thought I would link the Pitch Meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccf9G9Hx1i4) for this film. I have to say, im not impressed by the fact that they basically created a character only tangentially related to 101 dalmations and named it cruella as an obvious cash grab through name recognition. Even if the movie itself is actually great, I find that sort of thing obnoxious. I can deal with prequels, I find many of them unnecessary but they at least can tell an interesting backstory behind the bad guy which is potentially neat. This isnt even that. Its just, "Hey, here is a story of a young girl who grows up in an interesting way and has some interesting experiences. We decided to name 60% of the characters after a disney film cast but there is no actual relation."
That's what I perceived it to be. I actually think that's what the Star Wars sequels were meant to be, as well. They had no intention of continuing the story of the original movies, but to use the name recognition and nostalgic imagery to trick an existing audience into going for a new film.

I'd prefer a new film with an actual new setting and story to one where they are rebooting old things that really don't warrant rebooting. There are very few film concepts and settings that are just so great that they warrant reboots and contemporary revisions. Especially in today's world, where almost all films made in the last 50 years and earlier are still extant and increasingly accessible to watch. We don't need a new version of a great old film when we can still watch the great old film.

Ramza00

2021-05-30, 07:56 PM

That's what I perceived it to be. I actually think that's what the Star Wars sequels were meant to be, as well. They had no intention of continuing the story of the original movies, but to use the name recognition and nostalgic imagery to trick an existing audience into going for a new film.

I'd prefer a new film with an actual new setting and story to one where they are rebooting old things that really don't warrant rebooting. There are very few film concepts and settings that are just so great that they warrant reboots and contemporary revisions. Especially in today's world, where almost all films made in the last 50 years and earlier are still extant and increasingly accessible to watch. We don't need a new version of a great old film when we can still watch the great old film.
Emily VanDerWerff , chief culture critic at Vox (I think the official title is Critic at Large or something) recently did a Twitter thing on her personal Twitter that made a good point.

Things that get greenlight with TV and Video often have a progenitor project before they existed. They greenlight books, comic books, podcasts, etc into TV or Movies. You can not get the time of day with an idea or even a finished script, but if you have something physical and concrete it is much easier to sell it to TV and Movies. There are also people who search you out and say X is interested in adapting your project into TV even if it does not make sense for the medium and you have to reinvent the product for the media rules of what works on TV is different that what you can do inside a comic like hear someone’s thoughts, or the narrative tension is different for a true crime podcast compared to a Netflix series.

Well here is the thread. Note she made a lot of different points than I did in the last paragraph.

https://twitter.com/emilyvdw/status/1397695319270334465

In sum going from N where N is Zero going to One is seen as harder and more risky. Going from N equals One going to Two, Three, Four, etc is far easier. There is an existing fanbase, the money people know you can create a product, there is an idea of what the product is even if you remix it to the point is no relation to the original, so on and so on. This is actually not a new thing, in some ways this has been the way of the world always. (We can hash out the details and differences later.)

————

In sum I agree Thrudd, but it is easier to make water go downhill with gravity than to pump it uphill with a water pump. I do not like it, but I understand it even if I want more new fresh things. Thus I will settle for anything that sparks joy.

Lemmy

2021-05-30, 10:27 PM

Well... Maleficent was garbage... So is every Disney live action remake...

So I take a shot in the dark here and assume Cruella isn't worth my time or money.

Starbuck_II

2021-05-30, 11:29 PM

Well... Maleficent was garbage... So is every Disney live action remake...

So I take a shot in the dark here and assume Cruella isn't worth my time or money.

From what I hear, the story is nonsense (doesn't make sense how she acts to be the future self), but the set and dialogue is enjoyable. You would have fun regardless.

If you didn't watch the prequels (101 Dalmatians, etc), you would have no issue with plot hole.

Also, she should be smoking more in that time period (like she was in 101 Dalmatians).

Granted, she is an unreliable narrator, so this might be how she sees herself not how she is, but that would require an ending like Joker to pull off.

hamishspence

2021-05-31, 12:28 AM

From what I hear, the story is nonsense (doesn't make sense how she acts to be the future self), but the set and dialogue is enjoyable.

From the TV Tropes description, it may not be all that inconsistent with "future Cruella"

Villain Protagonist: Cruella is introduced with an intense mean streak even in her childhood, and the film focuses on her descent into madness and villainy as she fights her way to the top of the fashion industry, while also frequently hinting at what she'll go on to do in 101 Dalmatians.

Psyren

2021-05-31, 12:34 AM

From the TV Tropes description, it may not be all that inconsistent with "future Cruella"

Villain Protagonist: Cruella is introduced with an intense mean streak even in her childhood, and the film focuses on her descent into madness and villainy as she fights her way to the top of the fashion industry, while also frequently hinting at what she'll go on to do in 101 Dalmatians.

Yeah, Joker Wears Prada, we know :smalltongue:

Ramza00

2021-06-06, 10:08 AM

‘Cruella’ Sequel Gets the Greenlight at Disney — Report
According to a new report by The Hollywood Reporter, director Craig Gillespie and screenwriter Tony McNamara (one of the two writers for The Favorite) will return.

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/06/cruella-sequel-happening-disney-plus-1234642545/

CRUELLA
74% TOMATOMETER aka Critic Reviews 324 Reviews
97% AUDIENCE SCORE 2,500+ Verified Ratings

Tyndmyr

2021-06-07, 12:31 PM

I went in with low expectations, lower even then I had for beauty and the beast. I left actually kind of sad to be right. This one was real close.

Indeed. Disney really, really needs to stop leaning so hard on its glory days and actually make something wholly new.

Right off the bat, is there a need for this movie to exist? Did anyone particularly need the backstory for the villain called Cruella who wants to literally skin puppies? She was a villain, not some sort of nuanced, misunderstood character. I kind of get it for Maleficent, because you've got old timey hospitality values to work with and stuff, but this, there's even less room for reinterpretation.

The whole attempting to remake a villain of this sort into a tragic anti-hero just never really fits together, with the two portrayals largely always at odds with each other. Essentially all the creative choices are constrained by the need for a consistent portrayal with what comes next.

It occasionally has some pretty shots. Good composition, though the camera tends to linger self-indulgently. Some occasionally fun barbs/back and forth, though at least half of them are outright stolen from other, better films, which sort of distracts from them if you're the sort of person who watches a fair amount of film.

This means that, unfortunately, we end up with a fashion film with some elements of heist very awkwardly bolted on in a way that doesn't fit.

I am willing to overlook quite a lot of realism because it's a Disney film that sort of goes with cartoons, and a bit of stylized over the top whatever kind of goes with that, but not a great deal in this film makes sense even beyond that. What are the motivations of her pals to become her henchmen? They get angry at her, and then she wins them back by...telling them a bit about her backstory? And not even a sympathetic bit, just that her mom is also a jerk.

The sort of charming jerk stereotype that say, Tony Stark pulls off is fun, but it sort of does require a heart of gold. Audiences love a snarky exterior if they're convinced that underneath, the character is going to do the right thing. With characters such as this and Harley Quinn, it doesn't really work. Selfishness and pettiness for their own sake are not endearing. You can also make compelling characters by leaning in on other positive virtues. Competency, belief...characters such as Thanos can be fascinating to watch because of these. However, the competency kind of....has to make sense. If there's no sense of struggle, it doesn't feel real. Look at all of your favorite action heroes...odds are really good they took a hard beating fairly early in the film.

When a character is just a petty jerk, we instead see setbacks as them, well, getting what they deserve. This is absolutely fine if they are an antagonist, and are meant to contrast with the sympathetic character, but when they supposedly *are* the sympathetic people, well, most of us don't much enjoy dealing with selfish, petty people.

A lot of the back and forth fashion stuff also just...drug on. It was a necessary plot element to explain the coat making, I suppose, but it just drug on and on, with the movie never trusting you to understand what you just saw, instead showing constant flashbacks to five minutes earlier AND narrating constantly over the thing to explain it to you yet again. The film felt immensely overlong as a result, despite only being two hours and change.

Pretty much all of the bad choices follow fairly directly from the premise, so that's...unfortunate. If I were stuck making the same film, it would probably also not be a masterpiece, yknow? Gotta have some sympathy for the people working with some extreme limitations. But even with that in mind, the self indulgent nature of it, with endless people in the movie talking about how cool the events in that same movie are...yeah. It's not great.

It is not our job to sell you on a movie and tell you it is a good idea 😌, that is emotional labor and why do you want that emotional labor from strangers?

You are already convinced it is a bad idea, you are not listening with an open mind. And that is okay, people are not required to have an open mind, they are allowed to prejudge situations, and then deal with the consequences.

Nobody is requiring you to participate in any particular discussion. If a post interests you, chat it up. If not, skip it. It's a discussion forum, there's going to be folks chatting with different viewpoints that they've already come to. That's the nature of it.

Psyren you are making an assumption it is a prequel, I have seen it, I argue that is open ended, much like some Batman movies are connected others are not.

Not all IP is connected in a grand continuity. :smallsigh:

It does take care to set up even fairly minor elements and side characters. It's pretty clearly intended as a prequel. If it's financially successful, perhaps they will remake 101 Dalmations in live action as a direct sequel, but as it stands, there's no much that would argue against it being a direct prequel.

I figure the "why make Cruella, or Maleficent, or Joker, or Wicked Witch of the West, a protagonist" has the same answer in all cases - charisma. Turning charismatic villains into protagonists works.

I would argue that Joker works not because of charisma at all, but because it is fundamentally a tragedy. The character never, ever is portrayed as charming, the cool guy, or the person on top of the world. Instead he becomes who he is because he is forced to by a never ending onslaught of harsh events. It's a good film. It's not a happy film.

This is a fundamentally different sort of film than Cruella, Harley Quinn, or Maleficent.

Perhaps this sort of take would have worked well as a backstory for Cruella, but it would require a film wholly different from what we got, and a sort of unflinching hard stare at violence and misery that Disney is proooobably not willing to do.

You have not watched the movie yet you think you know a thing. I already said the movie is not about that, like at all.

Oh, I watched it, that's quite accurate.

The original question why was this ever made, like why does this exist, why did this get greenlight?

The answer to this question is immensely easy. Disney likes money, and sees releasing new content as a risk, but rehashing old content as easy profit.

If ones goal was originality and creativity, they would not have a movie release slate like Disney's.

Doing so makes a person speak out of place.

You don't determine my place.

Put another way would you ask a political movie, why did someone greenlight you?

Within absolutely any genre of movie, there are good ideas and bad ideas, and it's completely reasonable to ask why someone pursued a particularly bad one.

From Rotten Tomatoes

CRUELLA
PG-13 2021, Comedy/Kids and family, 2h 14m
73%
TOMATOMETER
258 Reviews
97%
AUDIENCE SCORE
1,000+ Verified Ratings

73% of critics gave it a positive rating and not a negative rating (27%)

So, I actually came to this thread with the intent of posting a review and participating in some light banter, but...apparently the thread is mainly you defending this movie bitterly? So apologies if it appears I've focused on you quite a lot, but you've been the person actively defending preposterous ideas, so...

I will say that this particular point has changed my mind on something. I have lost an immense amount of faith in RT. I have a great amount of difficulty imagining that 97% of people actually liked it, because the feedback has been negative to apathetic among my entire friend group, many of whom are quite fond of Disney films.

The discrepancy is so great that I find myself wondering how the RT audience score could possibly be legitimate.

The Glyphstone

2021-06-07, 01:04 PM

Peelee

2021-06-07, 01:13 PM

Right off the bat, is there a need for this movie to exist?

I have no dog in the fight, but I would like to point out that I hate this argument. There's no need for this movie to exist, no. There was also no need for Star Wars to exist. Nor was there need for Rocky, or First Blood, or Jaws, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Back to the Future. None of those movies needed to exist. Nobody particularly needed a story of a teenager going back in time 30 years to get his parents to kiss, or a professor of archeology and his Egyptian buddy to fight Nazis in the desert. But you know what, these became some of the greatest pieces that Hollywood has put out, cinematic masterpieces that have stood the test of time and are universally acclaimed. So I don't give one damn about whether a movie "needs to exist". I'm going to care about whether I enjoyed it. And if I didn't but other people did, hey, good for those people. I'm glad they got something out of it even if I didn't. But I'm not going to say that it didn't "need to exist".

uncool

2021-06-07, 01:14 PM

My guess? Most non critic people who went to see it in the first place already knew what they were getting and were happy to get exactly what they expected. Why fault RT when you can fault humanity instead?

I'm...skeptical of that as an explanation given the lopsidedness of the reviews. That could explain, for example, why a film got, say, 80% positive reviews when 50% of the public liked something, but if the "actual" opinions on it would be 80% positive (that is, in the general population, 80% of people would like the film if they saw it), that would indicate that of the people who wouldn't like the film, only about 1 in 7 people went to see it. And I'm really skeptical given the amount of word-of-mouth that the film is that bad - a lot of people would watch it to make fun of it.

With a 97% positive rate, that means that for every person that watched and didn't like, 29 people watched and liked. If everyone who would like it watched it and did, and they form 80% of the population, that means that the number of people who disliked it and watched it would be ~2.75% of the population. That would be ~13.7% of the disliking population, or a bit below 1 in 7; 1 in 7.25 to be exact.

And that's already assuming a generous like number.

GloatingSwine

2021-06-07, 01:18 PM

A lot of the positive audience score might actually just be uplift from people happy to see basically anything in a cinema again.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-07, 01:37 PM

My guess? Most non critic people who went to see it in the first place already knew what they were getting and were happy to get exactly what they expected. Why fault RT when you can fault humanity instead?

I suppose that's possible. Might be one of those where the score shifts drastically after a while, because initial scores were set by folks that were more diehard fans. Still feels odd given that some of the people I know who hated it were diehard Disney folks, but that can certainly result in some shift.

Part of it's that it's so insanely high. If it were, say, 70%, I might just assumed that my particular bubble happened to fall into the 30%. If it's only 3% of folks that dislike it, it seems unlikely that the half dozen or so I know are all from that tiny sample of folks.

I have no dog in the fight, but I would like to point out that I hate this argument. There's no need for this movie to exist, no. There was also no need for Star Wars to exist. Nor was there need for Rocky, or First Blood, or Jaws, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Back to the Future. None of those movies needed to exist. Nobody particularly needed a story of a teenager going back in time 30 years to get his parents to kiss, or a professor of archeology and his Egyptian buddy to fight Nazis in the desert. But you know what, these became some of the greatest pieces that Hollywood has put out, cinematic masterpieces that have stood the test of time and are universally acclaimed. So I don't give one damn about whether a movie "needs to exist". I'm going to care about whether I enjoyed it. And if I didn't but other people did, hey, good for those people. I'm glad they got something out of it even if I didn't. But I'm not going to say that it didn't "need to exist".

Sequels and Prequels are a different game. The original story has been told, and given that they did not already exist, the position was inherently open. There is always a need for a good, unique story.

It is a different thing writing Highlander 2 instead of Highlander. You have to consider what you're bringing to the story that's new, and if that story has merit. In the case of Highlander...the original story was pretty good, and didn't particularly need a sequel to finish the story. Sometimes with sequels you can clearly see this need. Your example of Star Wars, for instance. After Empire, obviously audiences have an expectation of a finale to the trilogy. It's needed in order to bring closure to the arc.

But sometimes sequels are brought about not because the story really requires them, or even has space for them, but because of money. Donnie Darko 2, for instance. The story was...firmly finished with the first. There is no need of a sequel. And yet....someone created it, and it predictably was terrible.

Cruella is much more Highlander 2 than Return of the Jedi. The original story doesn't require a movie setting up the villain's origin story. It's not needed in any sense. You need to essentially create some other story from whole cloth with the constraints added by it being a prequel. This is possible. An unnecessary film *can* be saved and made great by an exceptional effort, but it is inherently more difficult.

Nobody is using this argument to complain that we have too many good, unique films, after all. Nobody says that Jaws is unnecessary, though they might perhaps say it regarding Jaws 4.

Willie the Duck

2021-06-07, 01:40 PM

I have no dog in the fight, but I would like to point out that I hate this argument. There's no need for this movie to exist, no. There was also no need for Star Wars to exist. Nor was there need for Rocky, or First Blood, or Jaws, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Back to the Future. None of those movies needed to exist. Nobody particularly needed a story of a teenager going back in time 30 years to get his parents to kiss, or a professor of archeology and his Egyptian buddy to fight Nazis in the desert. But you know what, these became some of the greatest pieces that Hollywood has put out, cinematic masterpieces that have stood the test of time and are universally acclaimed. So I don't give one damn about whether a movie "needs to exist". I'm going to care about whether I enjoyed it. And if I didn't but other people did, hey, good for those people. I'm glad they got something out of it even if I didn't. But I'm not going to say that it didn't "need to exist".

I think people are phrasing the initial summation of their argument slightly incorrectly to what they end up saying. Tyndmyr, at least, doesn't proceed to argue why the film doesn't need to exist. Rather that the film premise one might expect (the backstory of Cruella from the 101 Dalmatian movies) was not something with an obvious target audience. That's a reasonable point, and it is somewhat telling that the movie we actually got is very much not that*, and cue arguments on whether that's a problem. You are correct, too, of course --no movie needs to exist (if so, how was it we were getting along just fine before it came out?), but I don't think that's actually the point being argued here.
*Regardless of whether or not this character makes a decent protagonist, whether this is a good movie, or anything else -- Emma Stone's character does not turn into the Cruella from the original book, animated movies, or the Glen Close live action movie

Peelee

2021-06-07, 02:03 PM

I suppose that's possible. Might be one of those where the score shifts drastically after a while, because initial scores were set by folks that were more diehard fans. Still feels odd given that some of the people I know who hated it were diehard Disney folks, but that can certainly result in some shift.

Part of it's that it's so insanely high. If it were, say, 70%, I might just assumed that my particular bubble happened to fall into the 30%. If it's only 3% of folks that dislike it, it seems unlikely that the half dozen or so I know are all from that tiny sample of folks.

Sequels and Prequels are a different game. The original story has been told, and given that they did not already exist, the position was inherently open. There is always a need for a good, unique story.

It is a different thing writing Highlander 2 instead of Highlander. You have to consider what you're bringing to the story that's new, and if that story has merit. In the case of Highlander...the original story was pretty good, and didn't particularly need a sequel to finish the story. Sometimes with sequels you can clearly see this need. Your example of Star Wars, for instance. After Empire, obviously audiences have an expectation of a finale to the trilogy. It's needed in order to bring closure to the arc.

But sometimes sequels are brought about not because the story really requires them, or even has space for them, but because of money. Donnie Darko 2, for instance. The story was...firmly finished with the first. There is no need of a sequel. And yet....someone created it, and it predictably was terrible.

Cruella is much more Highlander 2 than Return of the Jedi. The original story doesn't require a movie setting up the villain's origin story. It's not needed in any sense. You need to essentially create some other story from whole cloth with the constraints added by it being a prequel. This is possible. An unnecessary film *can* be saved and made great by an exceptional effort, but it is inherently more difficult.

Nobody is using this argument to complain that we have too many good, unique films, after all. Nobody says that Jaws is unnecessary, though they might perhaps say it regarding Jaws 4.

That's fair, but even then, Star Wars, Back to the Future, and Raiders of the Lost Ark were all standalone movies that told a complete story, and yet. The BTTF trilogy, ESB, and The Last Crusade did not need to be made, yet they all added on to the mythos of the original. Sure, by the time you hit Jaws 6 you're probably tapping an empty well, but there's no shame in taking an established property and trying to see if you can't flesh something else out of it.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-07, 02:47 PM

That's fair, but even then, Star Wars, Back to the Future, and Raiders of the Lost Ark were all standalone movies that told a complete story, and yet. The BTTF trilogy, ESB, and The Last Crusade did not need to be made, yet they all added on to the mythos of the original. Sure, by the time you hit Jaws 6 you're probably tapping an empty well, but there's no shame in taking an established property and trying to see if you can't flesh something else out of it.

Pretty much, yeah. Empire makes a good example. The first Star Wars told a complete tale, but Empire was a fun expansion on the world, and together with Jedi, told a larger complete tale.

It's somewhat harder to pull off with prequels, because instead of just using the first complete story as an introduction to another arc, saving you screen time for other things beside introductions, you end up having to start with introductions and work backward to a known finale. If you wanted to make a case for that, and stick to our Star Wars example, Rogue One does reasonably well. It isn't a necessary tale to the larger narrative, but they do manage to introduce new characters, and stick a new story in there that, in the end, lines up reasonably well with the rest of it.

They have the advantage of blank slate characters, though. If you were telling a prequel story for, say, Luke....it would be a lot harder to make work. After all, he'd need to end up as a fairly uninformed farm boy. That's a strange place to end up at for space fantasy. Rogue One's choice to use new characters for the protagonists was wise.

Cruella kind of runs into that problem. We don't have a blank slate character, we have to end up with her being the kind of character that wants to skin puppies. If you *also* want it to be a light hearted romp with a sympathetic protagonist, well...most people do not much like puppy skinning.

Ramza00

2021-06-07, 04:32 PM

So, I actually came to this thread with the intent of posting a review and participating in some light banter, but...apparently the thread is mainly you defending this movie bitterly? So apologies if it appears I've focused on you quite a lot, but you've been the person actively defending preposterous ideas, so...

Banter is the talk and / or exchanging remarks in a good-humored teasing way. Good-humored is a key aspect. It means to be genial and act in good faith.

Acting why does this exist is not banter, it turns things into a language of the trial. If we look up antonyms for banter we would get.

discussion, discourse, argument, chaff, mockery, derision, ridicule, irony, jeering, raillery.
Asking why something exists is not banter, it is the anti-thesis of banter.

Keltest

2021-06-07, 05:59 PM

Banter is the talk and / or exchanging remarks in a good-humored teasing way. Good-humored is a key aspect. It means to be genial and act in good faith.

Acting why does this exist is not banter, it turns things into a language of the trial. If we look up antonyms for banter we would get.

Asking why something exists is not banter, it is the anti-thesis of banter.

I mean, it seems totally fair to say that reviewing something is putting it on trial.

Ramza00

2021-06-07, 06:27 PM

I mean, it seems totally fair to say that reviewing something is putting it on trial.

Yep (adds more characters to pass the character threshold)

Maryring

2021-06-07, 07:06 PM

Ramza00

2021-06-07, 07:53 PM

It just asks for a deeper justification for it's existence than "money". Something that can compel me as an audience member to watch it.
Asking why does something need to exist is also a personal and political thing. Things exist for humans make stuff, and we feel “fulfilled” by the making, the sharing, and the experiencing. Why one thing is more fulfilling on a personal or political level is subjective.

But no while someone can ask why is this something that may interest me that is not what went down in page 1 of the thread. It was asking why does someone think this is a good idea. It was about prejudgment of the worth of something, before seeing it, like you can judge the idea of something, even though art is not a meta construct but also an experience besides things like plots and themes. Music changes things, style changes things, dialogue changes things, delivery changes things, acting changes things, etc.

Grey Watcher

2021-06-07, 07:54 PM

I enjoyed it, but it's not exactly a work of genius. Some of the plot twists are eyeroll-worthy, but I think the cast does a good job of selling you on something that, in lesser hands, would be absolutely awful. (Emma Stone and Emma Thompson play off each other quite well, Paul Walter Hauser is kind of adorable, in an odd way.) But I can see where, for some people, the performances aren't enough to paint over the flaws in the plotting. (The Big Plot Twist is something out of a daytime soap opera.) Basically, it's a turn-off-your-brain-and-enjoy-the-popcorn flick, not a psychological study or a socio-political commentary. If you go in hoping for the latter two, you'll probably hate it.

It's stupid, absurd, and kinda trashy (as trashy as Disney will get anyway), but if you can take it on its own terms, it can be a fun little romp.

As for continuity with the various versions of 101 Dalmations, I prefer to think of it as an AU. Makes more sense that way. Familiar bits and pieces re-arranged into a distinct story, rather than anything that's supposed to actually connect directly to the parent work. Now, if Disney is stupid/greedy enough (and they just might be) to try and fit this into existing continuity or do yet another 101 Dalmations that picks up where this left off...

Peelee

2021-06-07, 08:11 PM

I'd argue that in this case you very much are asking, and answering, the question "Why does this need to exist". It's not a statement of "X doesn't need to be made". It just asks for a deeper justification for it's existence than "money". Something that can compel me as an audience member to watch it. Because I'm not watching something just to give Disney money. They're a business. They don't need my charity. So, the question?

"Why did TLC need to exist?" "Because wouldn't it be fun if Indiana had to team up with his father on one of his adventures?"

It's not much, and TLC was probably very much a cash grab. But it's a reason that I would agree with. I, having watched Indiana earlier, would very much like to see how he plays off on one of his adventures if his father is around.

By that logic every movie is a cash grab. "Why does Raiders of the Lost Ark need to exist?" "Because wouldn't it be fun if a college professor punched some Nazis in the desert?" It was greenlit because it was expected to make money. Spielberg regularly turned in gold because his stuff made money. J. J. Abrams regularly turns in crap because his stuff makes money. If you get to the nuts and bolts, all hollywood movies exist for the sole reason of making money.

Sure, Cruella was a cash grab using existing IP to cop out of some risk that the same story with all new characters would carry. But I bristle against calling it no question whether a thing deserves to exist. People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.

Maryring

2021-06-08, 06:52 AM

By that logic every movie is a cash grab. "Why does Raiders of the Lost Ark need to exist?" "Because wouldn't it be fun if a college professor punched some Nazis in the desert?" It was greenlit because it was expected to make money. Spielberg regularly turned in gold because his stuff made money. J. J. Abrams regularly turns in crap because his stuff makes money. If you get to the nuts and bolts, all hollywood movies exist for the sole reason of making money.

Sure, Cruella was a cash grab using existing IP to cop out of some risk that the same story with all new characters would carry. But I bristle against calling it no question whether a thing deserves to exist. People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.

{Scrubbed} Of course every movie is a cash grab. But a movie being a cash grab is never a reason for why the audience should bother watching it.

Willie the Duck

2021-06-08, 07:09 AM

Sure, Cruella was a cash grab using existing IP to cop out of some risk that the same story with all new characters would carry. But I bristle against calling it no question whether a thing deserves to exist. People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.

{Scrubbed} Of course every movie is a cash grab. But a movie being a cash grab is never a reason for why the audience should bother watching it.

You're both right. Maryring is right that 'to make money' is a perfectly fine justification for those who made the movie to make it, but not the audience to watch it. Peelee is right that none of that makes "need to exist" a great term to use for something one personally doesn't want to see.

Aedilred

2021-06-08, 07:21 AM

I think that while asking whether something deserves to exist is a little reductive, the fundamental question at its core is one worth asking. And I think the assumption that "People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it" is, to the extent it's true, insufficient to dispel the question altogether, or at least the idea behind the question.

And this was a commercial enterprise. Everyone who worked on the project was (one hopes) paid for their time and effort. Even if this were a labour of love I think it would be fair to ask whether it deserves to exist, but in that case the question would at least be easier to answer. Nobody was asking whether Parasite deserved to exist, but if they did, the answer would be "of course it does", not "the question is unfair".

But this part is also interesting: "Someone thought they could get a good story out of it". Because at heart movie criticism is about cinema as an artistic endeavour whereas movie creation is principally about cinema as a commercial enterprise. We can assume that someone, somewhere along the line, thought that they could get a good story out of it, but we can't guarantee that. The most we can say is that someone, somewhere along the line, thought that the concept was capable of being spun out into a movie that would turn a profit.

Which is really what the question is getting at, I think. We like the idea of people creating things because they have a creative idea which they want to express, and we also have a vision of the artist as a largely lone individual trying to translate their vision into their medium of choice. The (artistic) successes or failures of the resulting art can therefore all be placed at the door of the artist. With novels, music, fine art... it certainly doesn't capture the whole range, but there's often some validity to it.

With cinema, though, we still like the idea of the director as sole creative force (hence why the director tends to get the blame when things aren't to the audience's taste) but on a project like this, it's not at all accurate. This is a project which will have emerged from the bowels of Disney's corporate structure and been run through committee after committee, gaining approval for largely commercial reasons, to the point where the creative control that any individual can exert upon it is minimal. And we clearly accept that, at least to some extent, because the director's name hasn't been mentioned once in the course of this thread except in a quote from a press release, even by those defending it.

So I don't think the "value the time/effort/thought" argument carries nearly as much weight as it would do on a more auteur-led project, and on movies of that type I usually am much more sympathetic to them and willing to overlook flaws because at least it has heart. That doesn't fly with me for this type of movie.

Looking at the BTTF/Star Wars, etc. discussion, I think those can actually be instructive, in particular when looking at the commercial/artistic distinction. An established, successful property will probably always make money. But artistically, one of the factors to be taken into account is how the new movie will interact with what's already there: will it add to it, or detract from it? Many of the complaints about the Star Wars prequels that one sees are not fundamentally that the films themselves are bad as films (although they mostly are!) but that the portrayal of elements of the universe, characters in particular, jars with or cheapens the original characterisation of Yoda, Vader, etc.

Does Cruella add anything to the 101 Dalmatians story, then? It feels a bit like it's falling into the trap of the "Just So Story" prequel formula that met such derision in Solo (from, of all people, Star Wars fans!). Rich Burlew himself has commented on the pointlessness of origin stories for villainous characters seeking to explain/justify their present characters, in Origin of PCs and Start of Darkness, and on that I broadly agree.

I haven't seen Cruella, and I probably won't. It might be a masterpiece. But it feels like the sum total of its concept pitch was "what if Maleficent, but for one of our other classic movies?" Which, if true, is fine. Up to a point. Studio staff gotta eat. I can mentally file it with all those other popcorn summer movies that I have no interest in, are of no particular artistic value, and will leave little lasting impact on cinema as a whole. So long as we recognise that there's more to cinema than this and that being profitable doesn't necessarily mean it's any good.

Ramza00

2021-06-08, 08:24 AM

And this was a commercial enterprise. Everyone who worked on the project was (one hopes) paid for their time and effort. Even if this were a labour of love I think it would be fair to ask whether it deserves to exist, but in that case the question would at least be easier to answer. Nobody was asking whether Parasite deserved to exist, but if they did, the answer would be "of course it does", not "the question is unfair".

Have you read the 1964 Susan Sontag essay “Notes on Camp” ? If you have not type “Notes on Camp” into Google and it should be the first result as a pdf. Yes it is some pages long but it is a quick read of criticism and it will answer your question.

Pretty much it answers the idea of “is it good or bad” with a different set of questions that Susan goes through with her notes, like is it interesting, is it fun, is it the right mix of artifice and self awareness that it just flows. If it is not than Susan says it is not camp (though it can be something else that is enjoyable, or it can be sour or bitter) but camp has this whimsy feeling and yadda, yadda, yadda (just go read the essay :smallsmile: )

Asking where a story sits in a “meta fashion” , as it creating a grand continuity is the project for some projects but not Crueler, and not Camp. Camp is being aware of the structure and not wanting to play in the preconceived rules, to play in the realm of sensibility and not a more fixed form like an idea. Sensibility is like Jello it is not a solid or a liquid, it has rules, but not the rules you expect, there are no systems or proofs, art has never been a math equation and when you are turning it into one you are being very meta and bringing expectations of the form and substance into your perception without you realizing it.

Camp is a playfulness that attacks the “necessity” of that specific form being assumed into being, and assumed it was necessary to always be molded in that fashion, much like Oscar Wilde stand out during the Victorian Era and his books of sayings but also literary works are bringing your eye to perceive the world in a different way than before.

Peelee

2021-06-08, 08:52 AM

Of course every movie is a cash grab. But a movie being a cash grab is never a reason for why the audience should bother watching it.

Then it's a good thing I went on to explain how I see a marked difference between "why should I watch this movie" and "why does this exist", isn't it? I agree with the former question being used, I disagree with the latter.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-08, 10:34 AM

Asking why does something need to exist is also a personal and political thing. Things exist for humans make stuff, and we feel “fulfilled” by the making, the sharing, and the experiencing. Why one thing is more fulfilling on a personal or political level is subjective.

Look, if someone feels fulfilled making their passion film, that's great for them, but it's not a reason for me, the viewer, to care.

I'm looking for a film that is entertaining in some fashion. There's a bunch of ways a movie can go about that. But if it doesn't do that job well, I don't really care about it.

Subjectivity also doesn't prevent measurement. Some films are definitely more well liked than others. Extremely few people are going to claim that Jaws 4 is better than the original. For all practical purposes, that agreement is so complete as to be objective.

Sure, it's fine to enjoy a bad movie, or not get enjoyment from a popular one, but we absolutely can talk about quality, same as we can discuss the relatively quality of cheeseburgers.

People put time, effort, and thought into this. Someone thought they could get a good story out of it. We can judge it good or bad on it's own merits, we can judge the result of their work, but calling into question their work itself just rubs me the wrong way.

Sometimes people put in time, effort and thought, and the thing is still not great. That is the nature of life.

We can judge both the end product and the apparent contributions of each. A number of people have suggested that the plot for this movie is weaker than the acting. That seems reasonable to me. One can dislike a film without putting the blame on a particular actor if they apparently did the best they could with what they were given to work with.

I also concur that the assumption that anyone thought it would have artistic merit is simply invalid. It is a certainty that it was considered likely profitable, but it is fairly unlikely that it was anyone's passion project. Quite a lot of people, at least some of the time, do work simply because they have bills to pay. Not everything you work on is something you necessarily believe in.

Peelee

2021-06-08, 10:46 AM

Look, if Sometimes people put in time, effort and thought, and the thing is still not great. That is the nature of life.

We can judge both the end product and the apparent contributions of each. A number of people have suggested that the plot for this movie is weaker than the acting. That seems reasonable to me. One can dislike a film without putting the blame on a particular actor if they apparently did the best they could with what they were given to work with.

I also concur that the assumption that anyone thought it would have artistic merit is simply invalid. It is a certainty that it was considered likely profitable, but it is fairly unlikely that it was anyone's passion project. Quite a lot of people, at least some of the time, do work simply because they have bills to pay. Not everything you work on is something you necessarily believe in.

I never claimed it was a passion project. Even people who work to pay the bills (most people) can take pride in what they do. I'm hardly passionate about my work currently, but I take a great deal of pride in being able to help people, especially in emergency situations. Saying "does this need to exist" about art is inherently insulting, especially because the answer is nearly always "no." There was no reason for Parasite to exist. There was no reason for Star Wars to exist. There was no reason for Citizen Kane to exist. Nobody actually questions those, though, despite them having the exact same answer to that question.

If a movie sucks, take it to task for sucking. I have zero problem with that. But "does it need to exist" is not taking it to task. It's asking an unfair question as a double standard because very little art actually needs to exist and most art doesn't need to answer for that.

Thufir

2021-06-08, 11:33 AM

Ramza00

2021-06-08, 11:46 AM

It's also a use of hyperbole to express a particular specific point of criticism which doesn't come up that much - the idea that a story is flawed not based on the work of the creative people who made it, but on its very premise and concept. The creative people may have done great work, but the foundation of the thing is bad from the get-go, whatever you do with it. In this case, I'm willing to believe that the film has good performances, fun moments, interesting themes, etc, but all those things can be found and could have been featured in a film which was not centred around an entirely unsympathetic, cartoonish villain best known for her desire to skin puppies and turn them into a coat. The problem does not lie with the creativity put into the work, but with the decision to put that creativity to work specifically on a film about Cruella De Vil instead of something else.
(I'll also note that I'd be willing to believe the question "Why did a Cruella movie need to exist?" could possibly have an answer beyond "Disney thought it would make money," but I've yet to see one)

I very much disagree, points to "CinemaSins" and a whole host of similar YouTube channels. We are not in a desert of this type of criticism, instead we are awash in an over-abundance of it where people do not take the premises seriously and authentically.

We are in an over-abundance of media, when you watch a tv or movie you are practicing something called "absence / presence" your brain turns off not your entire brain area but turns off brain areas tied to situational awareness of things happening in your room and it instead increases brain activity that provides a focused attention.

You are simultaneously absent and simultaneously present. Your brain is somewhere else and you are in the imagination space. When you watch people on the TV screen your brain is tricking another part of the brain and is thinking those characters on the screen are really here and they are real instead of just being light and sound. Those fictional characters have motives, aura, etc. They are human.

One must choose to accept absence / presence when watching a movie, one must make a leap of faith and buy into the experience to actually experience the experience. If one does not do so, they will get a different experience while watching the film. Literally your internal feelings and mind state that you bring into the film, internally, changes your perceptions of the external experience (the film.)

-----

Asking why something exists prior to the experience and "how was this a good idea" is not having the faith to engage in absence / presence. If you enter the critical mindset where you just want to be a critic or judge then you will not see. Especially when you tell the other person I do not want spoilers, even though I am very confident I know how the experience is going out, and I want to "argue" this but you are not allowed to bring anything into this thread that is spoilers (Yes this actually happen in this thread.)

A different question is, Asking another person can you sell me on this idea and convince me to spend my hard earned money to spend $10 on a theater ticket and 2.5 hours of my time. This is is a different question entirely. One is CinemaSins, the other is making a social request.

-----

{scrubbed}

Peelee

2021-06-08, 01:07 PM

It's also a use of hyperbole to express a particular specific point of criticism which doesn't come up that much - the idea that a story is flawed not based on the work of the creative people who made it, but on its very premise and concept.

And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe? That question, hyperbolic or not, is never leveled against movies that check the same boxes so long as you (generic "you", not specific "you") like the outcome. And if personal taste is what dictates whether a story was flawed based on its very premise and concept entirely after the fact, then that's going to be a notion I wholly reject. The ends don't justify the means one time and not another time based off how entertained one is at the ends.

uncool

2021-06-08, 02:27 PM

And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

Uhh, pretty often in my experience, especially when it comes to sequels. I remember having heard similar criticism for Iron Man 2 and 3, Thor 3, and some others that I'm forgetting off the top of my head. No, not as often as for these "antagonist prequels", but I'd argue that "antagonist prequels" are more prone to falling into the relevant trap being critiqued.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-08, 02:47 PM

I never claimed it was a passion project. Even people who work to pay the bills (most people) can take pride in what they do. I'm hardly passionate about my work currently, but I take a great deal of pride in being able to help people, especially in emergency situations. Saying "does this need to exist" about art is inherently insulting, especially because the answer is nearly always "no." There was no reason for Parasite to exist. There was no reason for Star Wars to exist. There was no reason for Citizen Kane to exist. Nobody actually questions those, though, despite them having the exact same answer to that question.

Again, all original works have a reason to exist, because the story hasn't yet been told. A sequel or prequel may or may not have a reason to exist, depending on the original.

If all you are doing is cashing in on the original and providing nothing new, then...no, there's no artistic reason for it.

Obviously an original work isn't a mere copy.

If a movie sucks, take it to task for sucking. I have zero problem with that. But "does it need to exist" is not taking it to task. It's asking an unfair question as a double standard because very little art actually needs to exist and most art doesn't need to answer for that.

Of course all art needs to answer for that.

Music that is a tired rehash of an existing song, a painting that is a mere copy, cash grab books...People can and do criticize every form of art on the same basis. You make something based on another work, with no significant new message, and people will complain about the fact.

It's also a use of hyperbole to express a particular specific point of criticism which doesn't come up that much - the idea that a story is flawed not based on the work of the creative people who made it, but on its very premise and concept.

Indeed. It is a criticism on the conceptual level. Not all concepts are equally interesting or good.

Every other level of art is criticized, why not the concepts?

One must choose to accept absence / presence when watching a movie, one must make a leap of faith and buy into the experience to actually experience the experience. If one does not do so, they will get a different experience while watching the film. Literally your internal feelings and mind state that you bring into the film, internally, changes your perceptions of the external experience (the film.)

I think everyone is aware of the suspension of disbelief.

This does not negate or replace criticism. If a viewer watches "The Room" and has difficulty buying into the experience, that is probably not a fault on the part of the viewer.

Your entire argument boils down to saying that if a viewer has a problem with a film, then it is the viewer who is wrong. This, I disagree with.

You criticize viewers for not having faith, and yet you never establish why they are entitled to our faith. I'm paying twelve bucks to be entertained. That's why I'm entitled to entertainment. There is no such reason why I must believe in the filmmaker.

I would also disagree that CinemaSins inherently means there is no further need for criticism. Any given individual's opinion may differ from CinemaSins, and anyways, that is at least half entertainment in its own right, not pure criticism.

And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe? That question, hyperbolic or not, is never leveled against movies that check the same boxes so long as you (generic "you", not specific "you") like the outcome. And if personal taste is what dictates whether a story was flawed based on its very premise and concept entirely after the fact, then that's going to be a notion I wholly reject. The ends don't justify the means one time and not another time based off how entertained one is at the ends.

Generally speaking, nobody consults us on if films are a good idea before the fact. If they had, I would cheerfully have given them my opinion, but pitches are generally limited to film executives and such. Of course criticism is leveled after seeing the film. That's when we have the most information to fairly criticize. Before production begins, we likely do not even know of the film.

But when we do, we totally do mock the idea of yet another tired sequel. Look, they're remaking Space Jam this year. Is that necessary? Probably not. Are they going to somehow make it into a good movie regardless? Ehhh. Maybe. I'm not holding out much hope. Also not really seeing a ton of need for yet another Resident Evil movie that probably has very little unique to add, and will likely further the franchise's slide.

The MCU has been overall, fairly good about giving most of the films space to breathe. Many are mostly original ideas(at least, in the sense of a film) or, as with Endgame, are a sequel that exists to answer questions following on from the previous film. There are exceptions. Iron Man 3 honestly didn't have a ton of original concepts to work with, but even there, I suppose I must give them some credit for the idea of "who is Iron Man without the suit?" which is....maybe not consistent with the rest of the world, but at least a potentially interesting question. The MCU hasn't had the same dearth of creativity at a conceptual level that other franchises have sometimes had. That's probably a major factor in their success.

Even so, people totally do criticize the MCU when it appears that this is faltering.

Ramza00

2021-06-08, 02:52 PM

Tyndmyr why does the Simpsons exist, why does the Simpsons do references? Why do I care if something has an origin? Why do I care if something is original?

-----

Your entire argument boils down to saying that if a viewer has a problem with a film, then it is the viewer who is wrong. This, I disagree with.

You criticize viewers for not having faith, and yet you never establish why they are entitled to our faith. I'm paying twelve bucks to be entertained. That's why I'm entitled to entertainment. There is no such reason why I must believe in the filmmaker.

I also said you do not have to see the movie, you do not have to grant faith. But walking into a thread asking "Why was this made" and "who thought this was a good idea" is being combative when you also said I have not seen it, and then make an offhand remark do a lol did I guess everything about it without looking at spoilers.

If you do not want to go see it then do not go see it. Your faith is your own!

And it is a use of hyperbole that I (as a prolific user of hypobole) dislike and disagree with. How often is such a point made against, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
Uhh, pretty often in my experience, especially when it comes to sequels. I remember having heard similar criticism for Iron Man 2 and 3, Thor 3, and some others that I'm forgetting off the top of my head. No, not as often as for these "antagonist prequels", but I'd argue that "antagonist prequels" are more prone to falling into the relevant trap being critiqued.

A more recent example of a similar "passionate" people asking why does this exist, is the Ghostbusters 2016. And I think I can underline why some fan people really cared about the integrity and originality of Ghostbusters but not all the other remakes that were also happening. No one shed a tear when Total Recall 2012 was made. No one asked "Why is this being made?" or "Who thought this was a good idea?"

Tyndmyr

2021-06-08, 03:42 PM

Tyndmyr why does the Simpsons exist, why does the Simpsons do references? Why do I care if something has an origin? Why do I care if something is original?

I haven't watched Simpsons in quite a few years, and honestly, I'm not sure why they still exist. I do feel they've gone downhill, though. Tends to happen to most series after a while. Either you finish the show up or you sort of run out of good material.

I have a lot of respect for shows such as The Good Place, which complete their arc while things are still relatively strong and end the show on a good note, rather than eking out season after season until the show eventually goes downhill.

I also said you do not have to see the movie, you do not have to grant faith. But walking into a thread asking "Why was this made" and "who thought this was a good idea" is being combative when you also said I have not seen it, and then make an offhand remark do a lol did I guess everything about it without looking at spoilers.

Perhaps you need to reread my review. I explicitly stated that I saw Cruella.

I admit my expectations were not particularly high going in. I thought it might be perhaps a 6/10 sort of film, and after seeing it, revised it to perhaps a 4/10. Not the worst film ever, but certainly not exceptional, and with some significant plot problems.

A more recent example of a similar "passionate" people asking why does this exist, is the Ghostbusters 2016. And I think I can underline why some fan people really cared about the integrity and originality of Ghostbusters but not all the other remakes that were also happening. No one shed a tear when Total Recall 2012 was made. No one asked "Why is this being made?" or "Who thought this was a good idea?"

People ask this all the time. I can point to youtube videos right now questioning why they are remaking Highlander this year. People liked the original Highlander. They didn't so much like the sequels. The idea of another remake makes a lot of people nervous, specifically because it smells like a possible inferior cash grab.

And for what it's worth, the Total Recall 2012 was...meh? Honestly forgettable for the most part. Many people did indeed ask why they would make that, and questioned if it was a good idea.

You will obviously get more resistance the more people loved the original property, though. Remaking a property nobody has heard of isn't going to outrage many fans. Remaking fan favorites, well, that's going to be a lot more controversial.

You seem to have some sort of belief that there is an unfairness at play here somehow, but all of this applies to literally everything.

Rodin

2021-06-08, 03:43 PM

A more recent example of a similar "passionate" people asking why does this exist, is the Ghostbusters 2016. And I think I can underline why some fan people really cared about the integrity and originality of Ghostbusters but not all the other remakes that were also happening. No one shed a tear when Total Recall 2012 was made. No one asked "Why is this being made?" or "Who thought this was a good idea?"

*raises hand*

I did.

I saw the previews for Total Recall and asked "WHY?" I saw the reviews with the plot changes after it came out and wondered "Who thought this was a good idea??"

It was another case where they were never going to compare favorably to the original movie. You're going to remake a movie that featured Arnie at the height of his career? And you're going to do that with Colin Farrell, who is a good actor but NOT in the area of cheesy action movies? Yes, I wrote it off almost immediately. It didn't get discussed because it bombed at the box office, meaning anyone who was likely to discuss it didn't bother going to see it in the first place.

The question was asked and answered with a giant shrug of indifference. The "cash grab" answer was readily apparent and nobody cared enough to defend its merits. Of which there are apparently very few.

On the broader question of "Why does this exist" being a bad question....meh. It seems a valid shorthand for "Why THIS franchise or idea when so many better ones exist?" The question of why a movie was a good idea is also a valid one, because if you can't give a good answer to that I see little reason for me to care as an audience member.

Take the new Matrix sequels for example. I see little value in trying to follow on from a completed trilogy with a pair of characters who died rather comprehensively in said trilogy. If they said that they were remaking the trilogy and bringing back the original actors to do so I would be on board. There's value in bringing the original into modern special effects, and there's a ton of value of re-writing Reloaded and Revolutions to have a good plot to accompany the action. Heck, the finale of Revolutions is mostly panned because of how bad the CGI was, since they were trying to do something beyond their capabilities at the time.

In a case like that asking "Why are they doing it?" is a very good one, because the answer is "Keanu Reeves is popular again". That bodes poorly for the quality of the movie, since it means they probably didn't have a hot script leaping off the shelves at them demanding to be made.

Peelee

2021-06-08, 03:46 PM

Of course all art needs to answer for that.

Cool. Then virtually no art needs to exist and we can stop this whole little "art" thingy once and for all. Problem solved, glad we decided art needed to answer for its existence.

Ramza00

2021-06-08, 04:04 PM

*raises hand*

I did.

I saw the previews for Total Recall and asked "WHY?" I saw the reviews with the plot changes after it came out and wondered "Who thought this was a good idea??"

It was another case where they were never going to compare favorably to the original movie. You're going to remake a movie that featured Arnie at the height of his career? And you're going to do that with Colin Farrell, who is a good actor but NOT in the area of cheesy action movies? Yes, I wrote it off almost immediately. It didn't get discussed because it bombed at the box office, meaning anyone who was likely to discuss it didn't bother going to see it in the first place.

The question was asked and answered with a giant shrug of indifference. The "cash grab" answer was readily apparent and nobody cared enough to defend its merits. Of which there are apparently very few.

On the broader question of "Why does this exist" being a bad question....meh. It seems a valid shorthand for "Why THIS franchise or idea when so many better ones exist?" The question of why a movie was a good idea is also a valid one, because if you can't give a good answer to that I see little reason for me to care as an audience member.

Take the new Matrix sequels for example. I see little value in trying to follow on from a completed trilogy with a pair of characters who died rather comprehensively in said trilogy. If they said that they were remaking the trilogy and bringing back the original actors to do so I would be on board. There's value in bringing the original into modern special effects, and there's a ton of value of re-writing Reloaded and Revolutions to have a good plot to accompany the action. Heck, the finale of Revolutions is mostly panned because of how bad the CGI was, since they were trying to do something beyond their capabilities at the time.

In a case like that asking "Why are they doing it?" is a very good one, because the answer is "Keanu Reeves is popular again". That bodes poorly for the quality of the movie, since it means they probably didn't have a hot script leaping off the shelves at them demanding to be made.

Was Total Recall 2014 somehow diminishing and make less the master piece that Paul Verhoeven did in 1990?

Will Matrix 4 somehow diminish Matrix 1, 2, or 3?

Keltest

2021-06-08, 06:18 PM

Then it's a good thing I went on to explain how I see a marked difference between "why should I watch this movie" and "why does this exist", isn't it? I agree with the former question being used, I disagree with the latter.

I would argue that the two are intrinsically linked. Unless we have suddenly entered some dystopian future where movies automatically deduct money from my bank account when they finish, them making money requires me to pay to see it, and me paying to see it requires me to WANT to see it.

To that end, you could phrase "they want to make money" as "they want me to see it" and therefore the real, specific answer to "why does it exist" should be whatever quality they believe it has which will get people to see it.

Lurkmoar

2021-06-08, 07:33 PM

Was Total Recall 2014 somehow diminishing and make less the master piece that Paul Verhoeven did in 1990?

Will Matrix 4 somehow diminish Matrix 1, 2, or 3?

For the former, my answer is yes. To be perfectly honest, the former film hasn't been changed and I acknowledge that.

For the latter, can't comment on something that hasn't come out. But I'd rather see John Wick 4, then The Matrix 4.

Aedilred

2021-06-09, 07:46 AM

Willie the Duck

2021-06-09, 10:09 AM

Perhaps a better way to phrase what is essentially the same question is "[why] does this deserve to exist?"
I think we should step back even further. How about, "is the premise of this movie, regardless of the execution, engaging enough for me to bother going to see." The whole concept of justifying its existence is, while not a red herring, certainly is a bunny trail-level tangent.

Ramza00

2021-06-09, 10:16 AM

I think we have got hung up on the particular semantics of the specific question "[why] does this need to exist?" Very few things need to exist and art is hard to defend on that basis unless you believe that art is essential for the sustenance of the human spirit - which I do, but I recognise is hardly a universal view.

Perhaps a better way to phrase what is essentially the same question is "[why] does this deserve to exist?" Plenty of things deserve to exist that don't need to, including a lot of living organisms. On the artistic side, Michaelangelo's David doesn't need to exist, but it unquestionably deserves to: a work of such outstanding merit that it represents something close to the pinnacle of its artform and which even if it leaves the viewer cold on a conceptual/artistic level can be admired for the quality of the craftsmanship.

Movie 43, by contrast, neither needs nor deserves to exist.

I think it's the latter question that's really being asked about movies like Cruella. Is either the concept or the resulting movie meritorious enough to justify the time and resources spent in its creation and being demanded of the audience, or is it solely about the benjamins?

It is about semantics but it is about rudeness.

Arthur Schopenhauer describes contempt as the conviction of the utter worthlessness of another human being. Now we are not talking about the worthiness of a human being we are talking about the worthiness of a media property, a piece of art.

We have a thread where people said they like a thing, others say it is meh, and we have people who have not seen the thing yet they feel the need to express contempt and say a thing should NEVER have existed, and it was always a bad idea.

You can not divorce the conversation’s ideas from the context of the conversation. This is a social exchange and one group of people want to express contempt at another people’s opinions, they want to be rude. They could choose to not voice an opinion, I do not go to a Super Bowl party and say Football sucks. It may be a valid opinion to hate football and hold it to contempt, I am allowed to have an opinion. But football deserves to exist for it is worthy to some people even if I find it boring with no sensible plot, it is just chaos and aesthetics, and it gets people hurt and is a waste of money and good beer. But why go to a Super Bowl party and voice this opinion?

————

Asking why did it interest you, or why would it be worth my time and hard earned money are not functionally the same questions as express contempt at others. Language is social and when you ask a football fan at the Super Bowl party why does this excite you, excitement being something that sparks joy. Excite meaning to call out forth, and the suffix -ment means to do an activity. Asking someone is not rude, but proclamating like a king on high something is worthless without having seen it is not the same as asking.

They are not functionally the same. You can not divorce the semantics from when and where you use them, the context matters!

AvatarVecna

2021-06-09, 10:53 AM

You're complaining about people "demanding" you perform emotional labor to convince them this movie is worth watching, but it's not like you're not putting that emotional labor in anyway - anybody who says even one word against the movie gets a dedicated section of wallpost explaining why they're wrong. If you think you're not obligated to defend the movie to anybody, you could always close the thread...so I guess everybody who's posted here is just living rent-free in your head.

And the movie doesn't really need anybody defending it. It's doing just fine at the box office, regardless of how a number of people seem disinterested in finding out the complex emotional tapestry of the puppy-skinner; I've heard pretty great things about the costume design in particular, which makes sense for a movie that focuses on her role as a fashionista and trendsetter. But I'm not much for fashion movies, and while the right kinda "villain origin story can interest me" (I really like Maleficent, Wicked, and Twisted, for example), this particular villain doesn't evoke the same interest in me to get to know them as a person.

I also think it's weird that you've got this whole side-thing going where you're insisting that it's not the same character? Which I mean hey, that might be technically legally correct to the disney canon, but also the movie is sold as a movie about Cruella de Vil, that's an undeniable fact. You made a comparison to Batman, where different Batmen are not assumed to take place within the same canon, but they're still all following along canon lines. They are different Batmen from each other, but they are all in the approximate area in which the Ur-Batman, the ideal Batman, exists. This movie, to hear you tell it, is like if we went to see a Batman movie and its a movie about "what if bruce wayne was from krypton, and when the planet blew up he was on a survivor pod that landed in Kansas, and he was raised to be a really good person by his small-town parents, and it turns out he's got amazing larger-than-life superpowers and he's gonna use them to make the world a better place. Now don't get me wrong, I love a good Superman movie as much as the next guy, and I of course agree that it's perfectly acceptable to say that Superman doesn't have to be like Batman. But if this is essentially a Superman movie, then why call it a Batman movie?

"She's the heartless monster who would skin a hundred puppies for profit" is why people care about Cruella de Vil as a character. Getting in her mind is what the trailer is selling. If this (functionally) is not, in fact, the character we're already interested in, then why call it a Cruella de Vil movie, instead of making it into its own original story? Disney knew the baggage this character comes with, so why plop her name in the title if they were really making something more original than based on the old stuff?

(I mean...if I had to guess, I would assume the answer is "if we don't make a movie about somebody from 101 Dalmatians, we lose our copyright on that property". But far be it from me to accuse Disney of being really stingy about letting their IPs open to the public.)

AvatarVecna

2021-06-09, 11:11 AM

But football deserves to exist for it is worthy to some people

Also, "some people like it, therefore criticism is the height of rudeness" is a bad argument. A film being good (and AFAICT, this is a good film for what it's trying to be...but not good for what it was selling itself as) does not mean that the film deserved to exist if the process of its creation was problematic. There are many critically-acclaimed films that have won piles of awards that only exist because the director was being an abusive dictator behind the scenes because he treated his vision for the film as more important than the people who would help craft it.

While this isn't quite as serious as physically or emotionally abusive directors who create masterpieces, it and many a live-action remake/sequel/prequel before it exists for securing copyrights and riding the trend of "sympathetic villain stories". Some are handled much better than others: I didn't like Maleficent as a movie, but I enjoyed Maleficent the protagonist and how she was explored. The Jungle Book was my favorite of the remakes for actually being better than the original, but that's partially cuz they made the story make sense, and making the story make sense required making Shere Khan a more understandable villain, where in the cartoon he's just evil and oozing charisma and an absolute bully and it's fantastic. The villain was worse, but it was in service of improving the story. But regardless of how the results turn out, the fact is that this ugly or beautiful tree is growing from poisoned soil - cynical soulless corporate politics, unwilling to let go of anything old that makes money, and unwilling to take risks on anything new.

Regardless of the quality, I do not personally wish to reward moviemaking decisions that grow from this soil, so no matter how beautiful the tree may or may not be, I'll not be taking part. It's why I skipped Beauty & The Beast, it's why I skipped Aladdin even though I kinda thought/hoped it would be worth seeing, and it's why I'll be skipping this one, no matter how pretty all the dresses are.

Ramza00

2021-06-09, 11:33 AM

Only mods can close threads AvatarVecna

JNAProductions

2021-06-09, 02:11 PM

Only mods can close threads AvatarVecna

You can not post, though, and unsubscribe from it.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-09, 02:22 PM

Cool. Then virtually no art needs to exist and we can stop this whole little "art" thingy once and for all. Problem solved, glad we decided art needed to answer for its existence.

Again, I think this is the part you're focusing on that most people would not agree with.

Originality is great. Cash grabs are not. Not all art is a mere cash grab. Perhaps too much, yes, especially nowadays when it seems that prequels, sequels and redos are most of the films in the box office.

There's at least a few films with something new to add, though.

Was Total Recall 2014 somehow diminishing and make less the master piece that Paul Verhoeven did in 1990?

Will Matrix 4 somehow diminish Matrix 1, 2, or 3?

That is mostly irrelevant.

If there is already a wonderful telling of a story, I have little need of an inferior version of it.

That said, it is possible that seeing the awful version might stick in one's head, and come to mind unbidden when watching one's favored work. The final season of Game of Thrones might make someone much less interested in the series as a whole, even if they loved it originally. Knowing that it goes downhill makes a rewatch somewhat less exciting.

I think we should step back even further. How about, "is the premise of this movie, regardless of the execution, engaging enough for me to bother going to see." The whole concept of justifying its existence is, while not a red herring, certainly is a bunny trail-level tangent.

I suspect that when we say "why does this need to exist?" that this is precisely what we mean. We're not trying to delegitimize all art. Just concepts that appear to be obvious hack jobs.

It is about semantics but it is about rudeness.

Arthur Schopenhauer describes contempt as the conviction of the utter worthlessness of another human being. Now we are not talking about the worthiness of a human being we are talking about the worthiness of a media property, a piece of art.

The work of art doesn't have feelings, only humans do. Being rude towards an object is without meaning.

This is a social exchange and one group of people want to express contempt at another people’s opinions, they want to be rude.

I dare say no person in this thread has dismissed the opinions of others as much as you. If this offends you, well, find a mirror, I suppose.

They could choose to not voice an opinion, I do not go to a Super Bowl party and say Football sucks.

The forum says "Media discussion" not "Media appreciation only"

You are welcome to enjoy whatever you like. Others also get the freedom to hold whatever opinion they please. Everyone can participate or not, at their preference. That is the nature of a discussion.

Only mods can close threads AvatarVecna

The point being made is that nobody is requiring anything of you. If you do not wish to discuss, nobody will make you.

If your desire is to prevent anyone else from discussing something because you dislike the mere existence of that discussion, well...I suppose you can try to convince people, if you want, but none of us forced you to have that desire. You're not being victimized by the mere existence of ideas that disagree with yours.

Ramza00

2021-06-09, 02:24 PM

You can not post, though, and unsubscribe from it.

Why is the default someone saying

A) This Should Not Exist, I will not pay for it vs.
B) This Should Exist, it is good, and I paid for it?

Why must B "Shut Up" and A get to control the conversation of the thread? Especially when B said if you do not want to see it, that is fine, no one is making you do so. There only request is to not be rude and wish non-existence on another and they keep talking about it?

Keltest

2021-06-09, 02:45 PM

Why is the default someone saying

A) This Should Not Exist, I will not pay for it vs.
B) This Should Exist, it is good, and I paid for it?

Why must B "Shut Up" and A get to control the conversation of the thread? Especially when B said if you do not want to see it, that is fine, no one is making you do so. There only request is to not be rude and wish non-existence on another and they keep talking about it?

as was noted, you have by far been the most vocal in telling people to "shut up", so i am unclear what your actual objection is.

Ramza00

2021-06-09, 02:48 PM

as was noted, you have by far been the most vocal in telling people to "shut up", so i am unclear what your actual objection is.

I haven't told people to shut up. JNAProductions wants me to be quiet. They are not the same. I asked JNA why must I shut up? So can you please tell me Keltest, why must I be quiet when others are allowed to speak and voice their opinions and dictate the flow of the thread no matter how rude?

Why is the default this must not be made, why is the default not instead why can't this be made when people want to see it and pay for it then it gets made?

Just concepts that appear to be obvious hack jobs.

Why is it an obvious hack job?

People do not agree on this!

Keltest

2021-06-09, 03:01 PM

I haven't told people to shut up. JNAProductions wants me to be quiet. They are not the same. I asked JNA why must I shut up? So can you please tell me Keltest, why must I be quiet when others are allowed to speak and voice their opinions and dictate the flow of the thread no matter how rude?

Why is the default this must not be made, why is the default not instead why can't this be made when people want to see it and pay for it then it gets made?

Well, i was going to go back and take some quotes of your previous posts that i felt pretty solidly demonstrated you telling people to shut up, but they seem to have been scrubbed, which tells me that this is not going to be a productive conversation under any circumstances now, if only because the evidence either way is impounded. So i will simply answer the last question with:

Because its my money, and if you (a hypothetical you, not Ramza specifically) want it, you need to sell your product to me. You NEVER get to insist that i owe you that money by default.

Ramza00

2021-06-09, 03:06 PM

Because its my money, and if you (a hypothetical you, not Ramza specifically) want it, you need to sell your product to me. You NEVER get to insist that i owe you that money by default.

And that is okay, you do not have to watch it as I said numerous times. But saying this should not exist is a different matter entirely :smallsmile:

I am not going to try to convince someone who has contempt for the entire idea in the first place. I will try to convince someone who is skeptical.

The best way for me to convince you is spoilers though, and if you do not want spoilers I will have to provide images, sounds, say these people wrote it, these actresses act in it, and pretty much have to just "trust me" when I say the combination of these factors make it fun. But someone else who sees those same combination of factors may not enjoy it. For example you may have a distaste for Emma Stone, even thought that would be beyond my ability to process. :smallsmile:

Keltest

2021-06-09, 03:07 PM

And that is okay, you do not have to watch it as I said numerous times. But saying this should not exist is a different matter entirely :smallsmile:

I am not going to try to convince someone who has contempt for the entire idea in the first place. I will try to convince someone who is skeptical.

The best way for me to convince you is spoilers though, and if you do not want spoilers I will have to provide images, sounds, say these people wrote it, these actresses act in it, and pretty much have to just "trust me" when I say the combination of these factors make it fun. But someone else who sees those same combination of factors may not enjoy it. For example you may have a distaste for Emma Stone, even thought that would be beyond my ability to process. :smallsmile:

Why is it a different matter entirely?

Tyndmyr

2021-06-09, 03:11 PM

Why is it an obvious hack job?

People do not agree on this!

If we all agreed on everything, discussions would be pretty boring. Universal agreement is not required.

That said, rehashes instead of original concepts is a pretty commonly supported grievance against modern Hollywood. If you genuinely like modern remakes of cult classics and the like, you're certainly welcome to explain why you do.

Ramza00

2021-06-09, 03:17 PM

Why is it a different matter entirely?

Trying to convince someone to see what you see is different when a person has Bad Faith or No Faith vs someone who is Skeptical.

It is trying to plant plants and make things green in normal soil vs soil which is salted.

I respect people who have salted earth to have agency that is different than mine and I will not waste their time, but it is not just wasting their time it is wasting my energy on a helpless matter in the first place.

Saying something should not be made in the first place, that it is offensive that it got made is No or Bad Faith. That person does not want a dialogue, they do not want to change their mind and see something they do not see.

A skeptical mind is different.

JNAProductions

2021-06-09, 03:40 PM

You can not post, though, and unsubscribe from it.

This was not a demand-this was a suggestion. You seem to be taking a lot of this personally, so it might be a good idea to take a break and cool down.

Ramza00

2021-06-09, 05:00 PM

This is a good article by Dana Schwartz on the subject of the thread

Title: No, Hollywood Isn’t “Out Of Ideas”
Lead: The only thing film snobbery achieves is robbing you of a fun time at the movies.
June 8, 2021.

https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/hollywood-isnt-out-of-ideas-cruella-reboot

Feel free to disagree! :smallsmile:

truemane

2021-06-09, 05:24 PM

Metamagic Mod: let's everyone please dial back the intensity three full notches. If you can't engage without getting upset, please don't engage.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-10, 07:24 AM

Ramza00

2021-06-10, 07:41 AM

I don't think it's so much that Hollywood is out of ideas, as that Hollywood doesn't care to take financial risks. A brand new film can be a cult classic, certainly, but it can also bomb pretty badly, and for all the time they've been trying, no way yet has been found to avoid all risk of turning out a dud.

If you turn out a dud with a familiar brand name, you at least get a certain amount of viewers based solely on the name. That's why you get properties like World War Z, the plot of which had frankly only a passing resemblance to the book. It tends to ensure that failures are less damaging, which is probably greatly comforting to investors.

I'm sure there's a ton of people with ideas out there. There are a *ton* of aspiring people who'd love to help make a movie, but the actual number of films that get a theatrical release in the US is honestly pretty low per year. Somewhere north of 99% of the original scripts created every year are not going to be used.

That's a little bit sad, but I'm not sure I have any great solution to that, yknow?

Isn’t this always been the case though? The 1920s and 1930s Hollywood were adapting things too, likewise the 1950s Hollywood.

There is a group of 1970s directors who grew up middle class and had expensive film equipment as preteens and experimented, and built their identity around experimentality and originality. But they too jobs from the machine adapting what producers thought were good ideas some of the time, and when they picked passion projects they too did not choose completely original works often adapting things like famous popular books of the time. Experimentality and Originality pardon my pun was not literally novel but instead a branding and rhetorical device.

I like aspects of these 1970s directors, but penetrate the veneer and you see the same type of stories were still being made.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-10, 10:02 AM

Isn’t this always been the case though? The 1920s and 1930s Hollywood were adapting things too, likewise the 1950s Hollywood.

There is a group of 1970s directors who grew up middle class and had expensive film equipment as preteens and experimented, and built their identity around experimentality and originality. But they too jobs from the machine adapting what producers thought were good ideas some of the time, and when they picked passion projects they too did not choose completely original works often adapting things like famous popular books of the time. Experimentality and Originality pardon my pun was not literally novel but instead a branding and rhetorical device.

I like aspects of these 1970s directors, but penetrate the veneer and you see the same type of stories were still being made.

Nah, it hasn't been. The top 10 films for the fifties have exactly zero prequels, sequels or remakes in them.

You will see a steady increase over time in a derivative works if you look at what films came out. Yes, there is always some ancestry to earlier ideas, but Seven Samurai is not exactly the same as Transformers 3.

Even if we flash forward to say, 1970, and look at the box office hits of that year, why, we see a remarkable lack of prequels, sequels and remakes: https://www.the-numbers.com/market/1970/top-grossing-movies

By 2019(2020 was kind of a weird movie year because of covid), the top ten hits were...all sequels, prequels or reboots. Every single one. There wasn't an original film until Us at #12, and the next entry is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at #18.

There's a difference there.

Ramza00

2021-06-10, 11:03 AM

Nah, it hasn't been. The top 10 films for the fifties have exactly zero prequels, sequels or remakes in them.

You will see a steady increase over time in a derivative works if you look at what films came out. Yes, there is always some ancestry to earlier ideas, but Seven Samurai is not exactly the same as Transformers 3.

Even if we flash forward to say, 1970, and look at the box office hits of that year, why, we see a remarkable lack of prequels, sequels and remakes: https://www.the-numbers.com/market/1970/top-grossing-movies

By 2019(2020 was kind of a weird movie year because of covid), the top ten hits were...all sequels, prequels or reboots. Every single one. There wasn't an original film until Us at #12, and the next entry is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at #18.

There's a difference there.
But those things in the 1950s and 1970s are still based off other works such as books, fairy tales, etc. Or they are part of successful genres like the musical movie, which is based off earlier musical movies but also things like Broadway stage musicals and other real life things.

What changed in the 80s and so on is that tv was popular for 30 years now.

https://omeka.wlu.edu/americancentury/items/show/111

https://omeka.wlu.edu/americancentury/files/original/556a9df7cfad7ae2dc88f9cee7c3893a.png

As you can see 9% of America had a tv in 1950 and 90% had a tv in 1962. But culture changes immediately but also generationally. You are going to get a 20 to 30 year nostalgia cycle based off the first event. Thus the self refer is other tv and movie properties in the 80s and 90s while previously the self-referral were things away from the tv world. 101 Dalmatians was based off a book, it was not original. Now the base thing is being based off either a new IP that is not mass like a book, or another previous mass property. This is just economics. People have seen another property before and the only thing mass today is tv and movies and we are even losing that.

So yes you can say 1950s stuff rarely had remakes but that is literally due to your definition of things of what constitutes a remake and what is called a “medium transfer.”

————

We see the rise of 1970s directors with a different aesthetic, names like “The Movie Brats” (Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, John Milius, Brian De Palma, Steven Spielberg, Paul Schrader, all friends, note there are other contemporaries but only those people get the colloquial term “The Movie Brats” for they were outside the friend group even if they were peers.”

For these 1970s people had TVs, but also had their own video cameras as pre-teens, and then they went to film school. They were the first generation born with tv as an early childhood experience, and they also had tools to manipulate it as teenagers, and then they studied it as a craft in their early twenties before doing jobs for other people, and once they had some money and reputation tried to do their own thing.

Of course people after them tried the same thing but it was no longer fresh for these people got first mover advantage. The unfortunate side-effect of being the middle or late siblings from a societal perspective to a “piece of hype.”

————

Star Wars is great but I can go chapter and verse how it stole / was inspired by previous ideas like Flash Gordon, The Space Race, Dune, etc (it was various obvious in earlier scripts with Dune.) But this is nothing new I can go how the Romantic Poets in the 1800s were inspired by John Milton of Paradise Lost in 1667 (it was rewrote in 1674) and that epic poem is all about references that came before.

Likewise Ready Player One which fad has passed over but was a real popular audio book a decade ago prior to being a movie. Or Chris Claremont’s The X-Men from 1975 to 1991 is literally stealing a new plot from whatever Movie CC saw recently, or which book or fantasy or sci fi he read recently. Stealing and re-skinning* is not an insult to me, it is the highest compliment for it is the only way things remain fresh during the generational transfer which happens with culture.

————

*Re-Skinning: This bit is not about the movie Cruella. But the only crime 1961 animated Cruella did was wanting the fur of puppies instead of older elderly dogs. If the dogs were euthanized at old age, a dog coat would be a memorial. Eating / Re-Skinning the flesh of the youth is the worse crime imaginable, it is vampiric, it is zombic where the old and or dead never gave the youth a shot. But perhaps there are many other metaphors of the old eating the young in this society we live in? 🤔 I wonder if someone could make a movie about those themes?

DaOldeWolf

2021-06-10, 01:34 PM

Finally got to see it. Why did it have to be 2 hours long? :smalleek: Couldnt they have shorten it? Its not like the movie has a complex plot or one with a lot of turns to really justify its time. The plot isnt anything special by any means and its strongest asset is the visual department (which I suppose its appropiate considering who they picked to make a movie about). Shallow and kinda bland. I would say it commits the biggest crime a movie can make (not standing out on its own). It will probably end up falling into obscurity.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-10, 02:50 PM

But those things in the 1950s and 1970s are still based off other works such as books, fairy tales, etc. Or they are part of successful genres like the musical movie, which is based off earlier musical movies but also things like Broadway stage musicals and other real life things.

The amount of originality required to make an entire animated classic from a short fairy tale is much greater than a nearly shot for shot "live action" remake of that same animated classic.

Everything draws inspiration from elsewhere in some small amount. That doesn't mean all things are the same.

But even so, let's evaluate your claim factually. Let us look at the top ten films of the 70s, by box office.

#1: Star Wars - ANH. Inspiration from Japanese films? Sure. A direct adaptation of a story? Certainly not.
#2: Jaws. Movie was under production before publication of the novelization. Essentially co-released. Not really an adaptation of an old work so much as a dual medium release.
#3: The Exorcist. Adaptation of a book. Still not a prequel, sequel or remake.
#4: Grease. If you count musical theater and a theatrical release of a musical as different, eh. Possibly an adaptation.
#5: Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Not an adaptation. Based very loosely on talking to UFO fans, etc.
#6: Superman. Adaptation of a comic.
#7: Smokey and the Bandit. Not an adaptation.
#8: The Godfather. Adaptation of a book.
#9: Saturday Night Fever. "inspired by" an article in a newspaper. That's pretty loose, so I'm going to call that not an adaptation.
#10: Rocky. Not an adaptation by any standard.

So, we have three clear adaptations, and maybe two you could argue for if you were being very loose with the definition. Not a single sequel, prequel or remake to be found.

Let us look at 2019's box office hits, shall we? (Again, sticking with 2019 because 2020 is an odd duck)
#1: Avengers: Endgame. Direct sequel, also adaptation of comics.
#2: Lion King. Remake, exceedingly few changes other than shooting style.
#3: Toy Story 4. Sequel, obviously.
#4: Frozen 2. Sequel. I suppose you could call it an adaptation of the original fairy tale, but that is sort of a stretch at this point.
#5: Captain Marvel. Prequel. Also a comic adaptation.
#6: Spider-Man: Far From Home. Sequel. Comic adaptation.
#7: Star Wars Episode 9: Sequel.
#8: Aladdin: Remake. You could also fairly label it as an adaptation of the original myth.
#9: Joker. Slightly odd in how you label it. It's surely connected to the Batman IP, and can be fairly described as rewrite or a prequel depending on perspective. It is surely an adaptation, though, and not an original movie property.
#10: It: Chapter 2. Sequel. Book Adaptation.

Can you really say that nothing has changed? In addition to the remake penchant, dear god, look at how much Disney is in that lineup. The mouse is eight for eight for the top films.

Even if we were to take literally your claim that any prior art at all is equivalently close, that has clearly become far more common.

Ramza00

2021-06-10, 03:48 PM

Tyndmyr I am not going to go back and forth with you. For how you parse the data changes the results. For example if you did not the top 10 movies of the decade. You would get different results for top movie for each year. Also depending how you count the distributor rental may get you different results such as 1971, 1973, 1979 you get 3 years but 7 different top movies depending on how you count.

1970 Love Story Book
1971 The French Connection Book
1971 Fiddler on the Roof Musical
1971 Diamonds Are Forever Bond Franchise
1972 Godfather Book
1973 The Exorcist Book
1973 The Sting Book
1974 Towering Inferno 2 Books with different Authors
1975 Jaws Book
1976 Rocky New
1977 Star Wars New, but easy to see it's influences
1978 Grease Musical
1979 Moonraker Bond Franchise
1979 Rocky II Sequel, 2nd movie in 8 part Franchise

By my count only 2 new novel things. Rocky 1 and Star Wars. That said some of the books you can argue for they were released the same year, and this was a total of 17 movies in 10 years for you can count distributor rentals (not VHS, aka the share of box office vs distributor, it is a different way we count box office then and now) 7 different movies could be the top movie of 3 years.

But this is enough complexity, I already demonstrated it is complex and how you view it changes how you perceive the same facts.

———

Passing the facts back and forth will not end the discussion when we are still not agreeing on the terms and values of the facts we are passing back and forth. We will just find different facts that suit the narrative of the values we see the world through.

I do not have energy for this and I do not really care. Best of luck for you Tyndmyr :smallsmile:

———

If you want to see my argument through my eyes remember I argued the 1970s are the exception that tested the rule, they are the most varied due to the shifts of tv, studio industry, etc for reasons I mentioned but a thousand other reasons I did not due to brevity,

If you do the same analysis of all 100 years of film, and notice the pattern. You will see it. More adaptions of previous tv and movies, the more recent you get with the 1980s and 1990s being the gradual turning point. This is due to technology, this is also due to demographics like the size of the populations such as the baby boomers, compared to other demographics.

———

Why are you not bringing up anti-trust when you open up new areas of conversation. Whether Disney owns 40% of the market is different than IP being new and novel and when does an IP successfully reinvent itself and so on.

Peelee

2021-06-10, 04:35 PM

Aedilred

2021-06-10, 09:30 PM

I think it's worth pointing out that there's a huge difference between a book adaptation, and an instalment in or remake of an existing film property, in terms of financial (and artistic!) risk. Someone's already mentioned The Golden Compass, which saves me having to think of another example. A hugely popular book series which didn't translate into success as a movie, either critically or commercially. It didn't bomb (though book adaptations frequently do in a way that sequels rarely do) but it performed well below expectation. It's always a bit of a punt because you don't know how either the material or the audience will translate to the new format. With a sequel or remake however you have a proof of concept already and an pre-existing cinema audience.

You can't simply say "neither is a wholly original property, therefore they're both the same".

If we're going back to the 50s, we should also note that the sheer volume of films being turned out was far higher than now. In 2019, the last "normal" year for cinema, there were around 800 releases in the US and Canada. This was slightly down on 2018, but still well above average for this century. In 1959, there were more than 2,000 releases. There's other stuff to say about the studio system, and how it enabled studios to take more risks, but that would be getting off topic.

By any argument in good faith, the domination of the cinematic release schedule by remakes and sequels in the last 20 years or so is unprecedented. In the 20 years ending in 2019 (again, the last "normal" year) there were only three highest grossing movies that weren't remakes or instalments in an existing cinematic series or franchise (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone, Frozen, and Avatar). In the twenty years before that, the corresponding figure is 12/20. The twenty years before that, 19/20, and that ratio then remains solid back into the silent era. The graph is undeniable. What it points to is a sea change in the way that films were produced originating at some point in the late 1970s and the resulting trend from which has only grown with time.

Which is not to say that modern cinema is bad. There's an argument - for which I have sympathy - that the first decade of the 21st century in particular was a new golden age of sorts, especially if you look a little beyond Hollywood. Some of those 17 films that were remakes or series instalments were very good - both "good for a summer blockbuster" and "good for any film". But there is nevertheless a concerning drift and films like Cruella seem to fit that trend. It may be unfair that it's become a lightning-rod in this conversation (and beyond!) for that criticism when it's just one of a number, but there aren't many other films around, and there wasn't really much else in the OP to get our teeth into.

That's purely from a meta-industrial perspective, for what it's worth. I think there are also questions to be asked about the merit of this specific subgenre of films in their own right; I've seen at least one article protesting this trend of re-imagining classic Disney villains as antifeminist, for instance. But I'm not really qualified to get stuck into that and I think it's beyond the scope of what can reasonably be expected in this thread.

Willie the Duck

2021-06-10, 09:55 PM

But there is nevertheless a concerning drift and films like Cruella seem to fit that trend. It may be unfair that it's become a lightning-rod in this conversation (and beyond!) for that criticism when it's just one of a number, but there aren't many other films around, and there wasn't really much else in the OP to get our teeth into.

Fair or not, I think it is a perfect crystallization of this film -- it isn't a singular masterpiece or singular offender, but rather part of a couple of trends. Remakes/sequels/prequels being one, not-really* backstories another. At least to me, this movie is pretty much 100% analogous to Maleficent, and if you are fine with or like one I would think you'd be fine with or like the other. Obviously individual takes on whether Cruella De Ville, Maleficent, or for that matter the Wicked Witch are intriguing characters might change this.
*As in the anti-hero or redeemed villain characters we ended up in these films just seem clearly distinct from the villains for which they were supposedly backstories

2D8HP

2021-06-11, 07:03 AM

"Cruella" was the first movie that I saw in a movie in a theater in years and by Crom it was fun!

Emma Thompson was beautifully regal and disdainful, and with a taser is hilarious "Oh I could do this all day", and Emma Stone wonderfully insouciant and insolent!

The cars, clothes, and music are fabulous - Disney does The Stooges "I wanna be your dog" and it works!
It's in sort of a fairy tale 1970's London that looks great, some laughs, even some tears (orphaning), not a film that will stick like "Paths of Glory", "Billy Budd", or "Locke", but I'm still glad I saw it.

I did have a moment's pause when Stone's character says "Oh fart" instead of another word but then I remembered "Oh yeah, Disney movie", a Disney movie with songs by Black Sabbath, The Clash, and The Stooges in it, and frankly once I heard the words "So messed up, I want you here, in my room, I want you here, now we're gonna be face-to-face, and I'll lay right down in my favorite place" all the films flaws (i would've prefered more '70's punk songs) were forgiven!

One Italian motorscooter, one British motorcycle, and so many '60's and '70's British cars, plus the costumes make this a visual treat! The setting was mostly a fantasy late '70's London (with a few '60's scenes), and so much of it has songs from the '60's and '70's (with one early '80's song by The Clash), and this couldn't have been cheap to make, so many period cars and extras in period clothes!

The plot? Not really the point, a fairy tale-ish beginning, some bildungsroman, and then a series of ludicrous heist, which I enjoyed more than the "Oceans" movie I saw, or "The Italian Job" remake.

It's not a great movie, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, or Vertigo it isn't, but it was just so much fun, and the outfits were FABULOUS!

I now want more period films of battling fashion divas!

So much better than the allegedly fun "Marvel's Avengers" movie that was the boringest film that I've seen this decade

It was a genuinely fun movie.

GloatingSwine

2021-06-11, 07:29 AM

So much better than the allegedly fun "Marvel's Avengers" movie that was the boringest film that I've seen this decade

Guess you didn't see Ad Astra then.

That had moon pirates in and it was still dull as dishwater.

Ramza00

2021-06-11, 08:32 AM

I now want more period films of battling fashion divas!

It was a genuinely fun movie.

Diva / Witch / Devil it is all the same and that is why we want more of them :smalltongue:

Peelee

2021-06-11, 09:03 AM

So much better than the allegedly fun "Marvel's Avengers" movie that was the boringest film that I've seen this decade.

https://media.tenor.com/images/a19963b1098476c364e59c45daf87089/tenor.gif

There's a short monologue from Mr. Holland's Opus when he played the then-new song, Louie Louie, for his music class:

Listen. These fellas have absolutely no harmonic sense. They can’t sing, the lead singer is yelling. They’re playing the same boring three chords over and over and over. The recording sucks. The lyrics are awful when you can understand them, if you can hear them. This song is about a decibel away from being noise. But we love it. I love it! Do you love it?

[She nods.]

Why? I’ll tell you why. Because it has heart. These guys are playing with everything they have and they’re having fun. They love it, so we love it.

There's a lot of things I love in movies. But ultimately, that's all I need to enjoy a given movie. That's why I love watching The Rock so much, right off the bat. He always seems like he's just having a blast. If a movie is fun, I'll probably enjoy it even if it's not particularly good.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-11, 09:23 AM

I wonder if it's worth pointing out that while Rocky was not based on a book or musical or other published piece, it was based on a real and very famous fight between Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner. And that it barely got made at all (along with a number of other movies, such as Star Wars). The studios were certainly very skittish about those.

There has definitely always been a certain degree of caution for novel things, absolutely. There's always been some element of risk there.

Perhaps the ever increasing cost of making a movie is part of it? It's easier to justify a gamble with a smaller sum, after all.

But there is nevertheless a concerning drift and films like Cruella seem to fit that trend. It may be unfair that it's become a lightning-rod in this conversation (and beyond!) for that criticism when it's just one of a number, but there aren't many other films around, and there wasn't really much else in the OP to get our teeth into.

Of course. Cruella probably isn't any *more* derivative than, say, the Lion King remake, or what have you. It's just the handy example at present.

I suspect there's also a bit of folks wanting more movies to see post-covid. We've been awfully short on new releases for a while now, so anything new that comes out is likely to get rather more attention. Right now, the only thing in theaters that doesn't appear to fall into the remake/sequel/prequel bucket is a musical. That said, Free Guy looks interesting and a bit unique.

Guess you didn't see Ad Astra then.

That had moon pirates in and it was still dull as dishwater.

Oof, yeah. I really, really wanted to like that movie. Sci fi is fun. It had some cool concepts. Rogue monkey space murders? How do you make that boring?

Ultimately it's way too much of one mostly emotionless dude narrating and staring.

JNAProductions

2021-06-11, 09:24 AM

Oof, yeah. I really, really wanted to like that movie. Sci fi is fun. It had some cool concepts. Rogue monkey space murders? How do you make that boring?

Ultimately it's way too much of one mostly emotionless dude narrating and staring.

It's very much about the main character. Unfortunately, that main character is boring and dull.

It also, for a "hard" sci-fi movie, has some really glaring flaws in that area.

GloatingSwine

2021-06-11, 08:27 PM

It's very much about the main character. Unfortunately, that main character is boring and dull.

This is why it is important that The Martian has one of the best opening lines ever. Up there with The Crow Road, The Invisibles and Saga.

Bartmanhomer

2021-06-12, 04:52 PM

Cruella was a good movie. The storyline was fantastic. There were a lot of twists in the movie. Emma Stone did a good job performing Cruella. It's a good movie overall. I'll give this movie a 9 out of 10 stars.

pendell

2021-06-28, 08:51 AM

Well, I'm glad someone enjoyed it. I'm not interested because I don't like the subject matter.

Cruella is obviously supposed to be Disney's answer to Harley Quinn, and I'm trying to figure out why I like Harley Quinn but I don't like Cruella. Like, at all.

Here's the answer I'm coming up with: I've just done a hasty cursory inspection of H's bio and I can't find any instances where she killed ordinary civilians. She's a supervillain. She fights superheroes. That's punching up, or at least sideways.

Cruella punches down.

There is absolutely nothing interesting to me about a character who kills helpless animals for their coats. She's rich and powerful, she uses that wealth and power to pick on those weaker than herself. I don't care if dalmatians killed her mother, that's still no excuse for hunting the entire species. There's a word for what happens when you tar an entire race or species with the crimes of a few, and that same word describes what happens when you hate someone solely because they have the same fur color as someone else who once did you an injury. I'm frankly surprised no one at Disney connected the dots and realized that they were taking a wealthy, white, genocidal speciesist , a person who represents everything we're supposed to hate in 2021, and making them into a hero.

There are those who won't approach the show that way and can enjoy it, and that's not wrong of them. But I just can't get the context out of my mind. I don't like bullies, and I especially don't like rich ones. So I don't like the movie, because I don't like the protaganist.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

No brains

2021-06-28, 09:08 AM

Keltest

2021-06-28, 09:19 AM

So Harley Quinn never actually murdered civilians? She's just been an accessory to murders? I've had a similar quandary about the likability of Harley because I was so sure her happy-fun manic be yourself dreck had gotten people killed.

Much like any Batman character, she's had several renditions over the years, but the "classic" Harley most people think of is generally not malicious or wanting to hurt people, she's just tied to the Joker in a toxic, abusive relationship because she's genuinely kind of mentally unwell in spite of being a psychologist. I believe a lot of modern takes have her in a varying-by-medium friendship or outright romance with Poison Ivy these days, another fairly sympathetic Batman rogue whose motives are not malicious for malice's sake.

Personally im a fan of this take on the character.

Tyndmyr

2021-06-28, 09:24 AM

Well, I'm glad someone enjoyed it. I'm not interested because I don't like the subject matter.

Cruella is obviously supposed to be Disney's answer to Harley Quinn, and I'm trying to figure out why I like Harley Quinn but I don't like Cruella. Like, at all.

Here's the answer I'm coming up with: I've just done a hasty cursory inspection of H's bio and I can't find any instances where she killed ordinary civilians. She's a supervillain. She fights superheroes. That's punching up, or at least sideways.

Cruella punches down.

While I agree that moments such as Cruella being mean to her pals, treating them as underlings is...not exactly endearing, I think the antihero aspect of Harley Quinn is a fairly recent revision, and even there, it's...shaky. I'm not sure I know the character well enough to cite all the examples of her punching down, and some renditions, like the recent animated show, are mostly decent about this...but definitely not all of them.

Example: Mass Child Murder (https://imgur.com/a/GaQQg)

You can, I suppose, make some allowance for mental illness, but that's a pretty common thing with supervillains, few of whom are without at least some sort of issue.

Psyren

2021-06-28, 10:44 AM

Ok we're talking about Harley which I have a bit more interest in.

I think part of the disconnect between Cruella and Harley, i.e. why someone would like one and not the other, is that there is just one Cruella (well, two if you count the 1956 original from the novel but I know nothing about that version) but a much larger number of Harleys, so it's easy for folks who say "I like Harley" to have a specific variant in mind that they connect with. For me, I can only speak to the two I'm most familiar with - BATAS Quinn (her debut), which was sanitized to the point that few to none of the villains actually killed anyone, and the DCU cartoon where she is very squarely in the antihero(ine) bucket. I'm sure there are many other versions of her like the comics (post-Crisis, New 52, Rebirth, Dark Knights), Injustice, the Arkham games, etc. that I won't like nearly as much, including ones where she blows up kids on Joker's say-so as linked above, but as I neither know nor care about those versions it's not inconsistent to say that I like HQ.

Meanwhile the one version of Cruella I know about skins puppies and isn't interesting for much if anything beyond that, so throwing her out of my mind is easy.

hamishspence

2021-06-28, 10:50 AM

Traab

2021-06-28, 10:52 AM

Psyren

2021-06-28, 12:55 PM

There's lots of Cruellas, if you count animated series ones as different from movie ones, and live action ones as different from animated movie ones.

1956 Novel Cruella
1961 Animated Movie Cruella
1996 Live Action Movie Cruella
2013 Once Upon A Time Live Action TV Series Cruella
2015 Descendants Movies Cruella
2021 Live Action Movie Cruella

1997 Animated Series Cruella
2019 Animated Series Cruella

You're right that there are versions I had forgotten (Once Upon A Time completely passed me by) but honestly, for a character that's existed for nigh-on 70 years this isn't that many. Harley has existed for a fraction of that time and can rival if not exceed this list, and I don't envision there to be a lot of variation between these permutations either since "skinning puppies for outerwear" is pretty irredeemable as antagonists go.

My larger point is that despite the behavioral similarities between some portrayals of both characters, it's a LOT easier to humanize and "protagonize" Harley than it is Cruella - the subject of this thread being the first truly serious attempt at doing so for the latter - so liking HQ but not CDV is not all that strange at the end of the day.

hamishspence

2021-06-28, 01:10 PM

I'm told that the 1997 series skewed a bit more toward "jerk" than "monster".

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/OneHundredAndOneDalmatiansTheSeries

Jerkass Woobie:
In the series, the episode "Coup De Vil" actually turns Cruella into one.
Several episodes of the series portray Cruella as a Jerkass Woobie / Jerk With A Heart Of Gold combination.

pendell

2021-06-29, 10:39 AM

I've only seen the 1961 version. Perhaps that's it. While Harley may have done some terrible things (depending on the rendition) I haven't seen her kick the dog so I don't automatically think of her as a villain -- more as a crazy and somewhat likeable anti-hero or DC comics never-kill villain, which is what I've seen.

Whereas what I saw of Cruella was not just her kicking the dog, but skinning the puppy. That's a lot harder to wipe away; that kind of image sticks. Because of that I have little patience for a re-imagining simply because I've already seen more than enough of the original character.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Willie the Duck

2021-06-29, 12:04 PM

I've only seen the 1961 version. Perhaps that's it. While Harley may have done some terrible things (depending on the rendition) I haven't seen her kick the dog so I don't automatically think of her as a villain -- more as a crazy and somewhat likeable anti-hero or DC comics never-kill villain, which is what I've seen.

I think those of us who didn't watch the 90s cartoon and stopped reading the comics roughly that long ago, we more know of Harley than really know about her ('she's a Joker henchperson who he treats badly' something something something). That lets the creator of a given IP define her for us ('oh, in this one she's an antihero? Sure, let's roll with it').

Necrosnoop110

2021-07-10, 11:39 AM

Thought it was fun. Could have been edited down a tad for time, especially the second half. Emma Stone continues to amaze me. At first I thought she was just another cute face but that woman can act. Check her out in the The Favourite (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5083738/) to see her acting chops at full steam (if you can watch dramas).

Ramza00

2021-08-13, 05:57 PM

So Emma Stone just made a contract deal for the Cruella sequel.

https://deadline.com/2021/08/emma-stone-cruella-sequel-deal-scarlett-johansson-lawsuit-disney-1234814551/

And if you are a Disney Plus subscriber you can see Cruella 1 for free in 2 weeks (the 27th of August) so you do not have to do a movie ticket with COVID Delta or pay $30 to add a permanent copy to your streaming library.

Ramza00

2021-08-27, 12:48 PM

Cruella is out now as a free component in any Disney Plus subscription, stream for free as part of your monthly bill.

Palanan

2021-08-31, 10:05 PM

I finally plowed my way through this movie. It’s like popcorn—faintly tasty, ultimately empty, but somehow you keep wanting a little more.

I have no idea what this movie is trying to be. It’s not a heist movie, since there aren’t any real heists to speak of. It’s not a young artist movie, since Cruella does away with her aspiring artist’s career.

And it’s not really a villain origin movie, because we never see her do anything truly evil. She's really not much more than faintly naughty—which really trips up the villain aspect. The movie spends its first half doing its best to give us a sympathetic main character—and then a slightly enjoyable rebel—and then has no clear idea what to do with her next. She doesn't even hoodwink the Baroness out of the mansion; Cruella inherits it fair and square. You would at least expect a master con job to close out the movie, but Cruella is too busy still being sympathetic.

The Star Wars prequels, for all their many flaws, at least showed us an essentially decent kid who eventually fell to evil through anger, fear and pride. There’s nothing like that here, because she never actually falls; she just goes slightly bad-girl, wears lots of black, and…not much else?

Fortunately Emma Stone can carry the movie, such as it is, because she’s not getting much help. Her two partners in petty crime have close to zero drips of personality between them, and the Baroness, while well-acted, is more of a caricature than a character.

And unfortunately it’s all so very, very contrived. After the convoluted setup, it’s The Devil Wears Prada meets…actually, it doesn’t meet anything other than the far end of its own setup, plus a couple of pointless car chases and every possible excuse to play 70s music. But even when she’s given every opportunity, Cruella never makes any evil choices, and she ends up more a vigilante than a villain. There’s just no way to connect the moral dots from the end of this movie to where the original Cruella ends up.

It’s almost as if the entire movie is a long “What If…?” episode, giving us an alternate universe in which Cruella wasn’t actually so bad. And the not-so-bad Cruella is reasonably fun to watch—but that only makes for more of a disconnect with everything the movie assumes we know about her future.