Cruella

[Ramza00]

Cruella well I liked it.

[Dragonus45]

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.

[SaintRidley]

I read the first paragraph of the plot summary on wikipedia. Disney's live action villain origin stories continue to have some of the dumbest ideas in cinematic history.

[Ramza00]

I read the first paragraph of the plot summary on wikipedia. Disney's live action villain origin stories continue to have some of the dumbest ideas in cinematic history.

{scrubbed}

[Sholos]

Just read through the Plot synopsis on Wiki and unless I'm missing something it just sounds bad. Also, mid-credits spoiler:

Spoiler

Show

So Pongo and Perdita are siblings? The writers know those two go on to have puppies, right? Squick.

[Ramza00]

Just read through the Plot synopsis on Wiki and unless I'm missing something it just sounds bad. Also, mid-credits spoiler:

Spoiler

Show

So Pongo and Perdita are siblings? The writers know those two go on to have puppies, right? Squick.

True but the way I see it

Spoiler: What is Cruella, the Movie?

Show

Is it a prequel, is it an elseworld, or perhaps a homage?

After all this movie takes place from 1952 to 1977 with most of it occurring in 1977 but some key events happening in 1965. Well the Disney Animated Movie was 1961, and the book it is based from is the mid 50s.

Tying things into a tight continuity is a choice a viewer can make like thinking all the Pixar movies including CARS takes place in the same universe. But I am not sure if the evidence supports it 🤔

[Kitten Champion]

Just read through the Plot synopsis on Wiki and unless I'm missing something it just sounds bad. Also, mid-credits spoiler:

Spoiler

Show

So Pongo and Perdita are siblings? The writers know those two go on to have puppies, right? Squick.

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.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

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]

- 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

Spoiler

Show

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

[Thrudd]

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

[hamishspence]

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:

Spoiler

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

Just read through the Plot synopsis on Wiki and unless I'm missing something it just sounds bad. Also, mid-credits spoiler:

Spoiler

Show

So Pongo and Perdita are siblings? The writers know those two go on to have puppies, right? Squick.

Spoiler

Show

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]

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.

[Ramza00]

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.



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]

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]

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]

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.

[Dienekes]

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.

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]

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.

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]

{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]

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]

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.

[Ramza00]

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]

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.

I understand how you can feel different. That is why everything I said was mentioned from my point of view. In my own personal opinion, I just dont see the point in trying to redeem/justify/symphatize with horrible/petty people doing horrible/petty things. If you can let that slide, more power to you. Its just not the same for me.

[The Glyphstone]

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.

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.

[hamishspence]

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]

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. But most of you are wrong if you prejudge what the movie is about

( 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]

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]

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.

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.