MovieChat Forums > One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) Discussion > Why would it have been disastrous?

Why would it have been disastrous?

posted 11 years ago by StrongRex
3 replies | jump to latest

Why did Tibbs advise against the Dalmatians staying to fight? I mean, just a scene earlier, Pongo and Perdita have NO problem handling Horace and Jasper on their own, and now they have a bigger dog (Colonel), plus a HORSE (Captain). And when they leave, Colonel starts barking and growling at them anyway, and Captain practically kicks them through the barn's WALLS.

So...how exactly would this have backfired on them fighting them TOGETHER if they all could handle Horace and Jasper separately?

[–] SkittlesMilly 11 years ago

So the parents could guide the puppies away from the barn and give them a head start?

Believe me, nothing is trivial. - Eric Draven, The Crow.

[–] liscarkat (18456) 4 years ago

The thugs had at least one revolver, but after a few shots all those dogs, the horse, and the cat would have overwhelmed them. The coroner would have had a miserable project picking up the scattered, blood-soaked pieces of meat and bone.

[–] avortac4 (3745) 3 years ago

"The thugs had at least one revolver, but after a few shots all those dogs, the horse, and the cat would have overwhelmed them"

No. Animals are AFRAID of loud sounds like that, and you obviously don't realize just _HOW_ loud guns are. They're ridiculously, RIDICULOUSLY loud.

Also, the 'disaster' might have been that the animals, in their uncontrolled, animalistic, red-zone territorial rage would've torn apart the humans, meaning these dogs would've become murderers (though carnivore animals always are anyway, they're ready to murder and not feel bad about it, they wouldn't feel remorse for killing YOU and eating your flesh, it would be a normal day for them), and that means they would've been put down or shot or something.

Hence, 'disaster'.