....showing her being bullied in school and having her idea being stolen by another designer?
Pretty sure based on the original character, she's just a smart business psycho.
it is revealed that the reason Cruella chooses to skin puppies is that when short-haired dogs grow older, their fur becomes very coarse, which does not sell as well in the fur fashion industry as the fine, soft fur of puppies.
I was turned off by Malefescent and am turned off by this. I don't need some sob story of how Carella Deville is a villain because she was bullied as a kid and mistreated by others. As far as I'm concerned I like my movie villains to be unsympathetic jerks who you don't feel sorry for when they meet their demise.
shareYou ain't lying.
shareAgreed. This looks interesting and I like Emma Stone, so I'll give it a whirl. But really, it's like, what's the point? Maybe we'll see some backstory that makes her a bit sympathetic but I can't see there being anything that will make me go "Welp it's totally forgivable she tried to murder 99 innocent puppies to make a coat then."
shareMy sense of humor can be off, so I apologize if I'm wrong, but I read your post as the only reason this movie is being made is so that we can justify why a woman would want to kill 99 puppies and I have been non stop laughing for a long time.
shareMy sense of humor is definitely very off, so I get ya.
That's not entirely how I meant it, but not how I *didn't* mean it either? I get how you saw it that way though, glad to give you a laugh :)
I love this.
And agree with your taste in movie villains.
I agree. Maleficent was one of Disney's best villains. She was cruel and vindictive. I don't want or need to feel empathy for her. These are fairy tales. They don't need in-depth character studies. Sometimes evil can just be evil.
shareAre you implying that knowing why someone became evil is somehow an excuse? Sorry, but if I knew Hitler grew up to be an evil sack of shit because he was bullied it wouldn't cause me to hesitate before putting bullet in him nor would I lose a bit of sleep because of it. Only some soft ass liberal thinks the backstory is an excuse. I don't see any backstory as any type of excuse even if it shows why someone who might have otherwise been a perfectly decent person is now evil incarnate. Knowing the backstory can simply be interesting, nothing more. Anyone that thinks a bit knows that no babies are born with an instinct to rape and kill... everyone is innocent at some point know matter how evil they end up later in life. I don't watch movies to learn lessons I watch them to be entertained, and this movie was more entertaining that I thought it would be.
shareNo. Not at all. I was just saying I don't like film makers turning unsympathetic characters sympathetic. It's why I don't like Spider-Man 2 and 3 very much.
shareWTF does HITLER have to do with anything? This is why the internet came up with Godwin's Law, to make fun of lazy thinkers like you.
share[deleted]
Godwin's law is only cited by people who are too lazy to think for themselves... sort of like the way people use formal fallacies to shut down a discussion by claiming "you did this fallacy, so you're wrong"
Address the point that was made.
The hard part is that if Disney made The Childhood of Hitler, Hitler, being the main character, would be turned into something the audience could sympathize with, that the audience is expected to sympathize with. The movie will do its best to make you feel bad for not sympathizing with Child Hitler who hasn't committed any of these atrocities that he will as an adult.
The problem with these movies is that they're setup to provide an excuse for the villain and if you don't accept that excuse then the rest of the movie is pure punishment.
[deleted]
Who’s next? The fat octopus woman from Little Mermaid? Was she running for King of Atlantis or something and at the last minute she was involved in a email scandal and lost to Ariel’s dad? Then her best friend Epstein died from a very suspicious suicide and she turned green from a rare skin disease or alopecia.
Wait maybe I would watch this movie...
Don't give them any ideas!!! I'm not kidding! 😨
shareHaven't you noticed a pattern with all the live action Disney remakes lately? There is no such thing as a woman who is just evil. They all have to have been hurt by someone (usually a man) in the past. Charlize Theron's evil queen in the updated Snow White movies. Angelina Jolie's character in Maleficent. I think they even did something similar with the Cinderella wicked stepmother where she is bitter because of some man who wronger her. So I'm not surprised at all that they are trying to provide a backstory for Cruella.
shareAll of Disney's so-called "feminist" movies have been some of the worst, regressive ass-backwards pieces of garbage ever. onscreen. They're so regressive, they actually make the pre Little Mermaid Disney princess films seem progressive by comparison.
shareCruella is not hurt by a man. And now?
shareMarxist victim culture has also taken over this film. Always another group that perceived as "oppressive", "privileged" is guilty of the evil of a group that is perceived as "weak", "oppressed". There's no personal responsibility anymore. This time it is more related to old Marxism than Neo-Marxism and focuses on classes and economic inequality. The story didn't even make any sense because someone sadist as Cruella who feel joy for killing 99 puppies must be with history of sadism and lust for blood from a young age. Putting that aside, the film itself is quite enjoyable, mostly thanks to Stone, and the propaganda doesn't annoying as the film Maleficent.
I'll just repost what I speculated in a similar thread: she needed an origin story because Hollywood is at peak nihilism, and part of peak nihilism is making cool, sympathetic anti-heroes out of sociopaths. Everyone writing and producing movies and TV shows are sociopaths, and naturally, being sociopaths, they're using so many movies and TV shows to try to brainwash everyone into thinking that they're really sympathetic victims of society who are being horribly misunderstood.
I know that seems cynical, but there were a million and one ways that they could've gone with her origin story--like how she got her signature look, for example. But nooooo, Disney wants children and young people to understand that the evil cruel bitch who was murdering little puppies for profit suffered a little boo boo. 🙄
I'm gonna assume you didn't actually watch the movie before going on this rant?
shareAbusing animals at a young age is the strongest sign someone is a psychopath.
This vile character should not be celebrated.
Agreed
shareThis's why the backstory not convincing. It's more sense that she grow up as a child with parents who show no emotion at all and developed psychopathic impulses from an early age.
shareI still find their explanation of her hair being that way "because she was born with it" very stupid. Nobody is born with two-toned hair like that unless you're an alien, or from a fantasy world. The closest you're gonna get in real life is someone with black hair and a white/silver forelock. It would make more sense that she had boring brown hair, loves the colors black and white together, and decided to go nuts when dyeing her hair later on in life. I mean, she's a fashionista that loves making statements, right?
Even the "Once Upon A Time" explanation was better than that! In that version, she was originally a blond, and got into a fight with a supernatural story-teller, and during the brawl, his magical ink and pen splashed onto her head and eyebrows, leaving that strange coloring on her.
I have only seen parts of the movie, but thought she was dying her hair that way... Disney seriously chose "she was born with it?" I get the hair style is iconic which is why they chose to give it to her as a child, but still... that's cheap.
share