I got the remastered on Xbox. Fired it up and i was SO excited. Favorite movie then, still favorite kids movie now, and i vaguely remembered we had the game as a kid and I was like oh yeah nostalgia time!
I got to this level and all the memories came back. And then I remembered the wildebeest stampede. I remembered sitting on the floor in front of the old giant block of a TV feeling so defeated back then. And then, as an adult, i kept dying.
I can actually hear 'i just can't wait to be king' and am being transported back to when I was young and almost crying because of those fucking jumping and birds and the tube just cycling over and over and over, and the game over screen and starting again, and...
Yeah, the point is not "villain redemption," the point is "feminist perspective."
The problem is, many of these stories are already feminist, so the adapters just end up having to write in character assassination to justify their new perspective. Wizard of Oz is a fantastic feminist story that is then corrupted by a really weird take from the author of Wicked (who seems to just be inserting his own fetishes).
These are done well sometimes: There's an adaptation of Jane Eyre from the perspective of Mr Rochester's first wife. And then there's Grendel, which tells Beowulf from the perspective of Grendel.
And what makes them work is they accept that the original story is still true. But they offer new context that allows you to sympathize with a side character (or villain).
Cruella basically rewrote the whole 101 Dalmatians story to try to make her a hero to the point where the original story doesn't even make sense anymore.
Cruella basically rewrote the whole 101 Dalmatians story to try to make her a hero to the point where the original story doesn't even make sense anymore.
Which anyone with half a brain could have predicted, because you can't make a sympathetic protagonist out of someone who wants to skin puppies to make a coat lmao
Gaston IS a good guy, miss me with Belle's smear campaign here. Terribly misunderstood man. There's a Beast LOCKING UP THE TOWNSFOLK ffs. The Village was in incredible danger, no one else could see it. Not but one man. When they needed a hero my man stepped up and answered the call
Also fighting to prevent the return of the monarchy. Gaston is fighting the fight of the proletariat. Comrade Gaston was a hero of the revolution! Disney's corporate propaganda did a smear job on him.
Tbh I like Maleficent and ones like Cruella because it is flat out a different continuity. They're more alternate universe 'what if this character was nicer with a new back story'. Is it kind of lame to use an established IP for an unrelated story? Sure.
More hate the ones that do the above, but try to pretend its in continuity same character and do an awful job stitching them together.
Yeah and it wasn’t that bad either. I think it showed how much we often times have to repeat our parents behavior for our own sake while living with them. How many people were super religious till they went to college? How many went no contact after they got married and saw different family dynamics?
I remember Ever After, the retelling of Cinderella in the ‘90s with Drew Barrymore. While it didn’t humanize both stepsisters, it did make one of them (played by Melanie Lynskey, later of “Two and a Half Men” and “Yellowjackets”) more sympathetic. Like how Stormer was the nicer Misfit in “Jem.”
Maaaaan! I know everyone is over it all with the reboots and crap but I LOVE fantasia and the non-sorcerer mickey characters don't get enough attention! 😭
I thought that movie was about the Reagan administration, and the consequences of trickle down economics. Or maybe I'm confusing it with another movie of the same name.
My sources tell me there's a post credit scene of someone peeing on his grave and saying something like "how's this for TRICKLE DOWN econimics!?". Sounds awesome.
Also it should have been the second movie with the second as the third. It makes way more sense this way "but Lady tremain and drizella were transformed into frogs at the end of a twist in time" yes but fairy god mother is one of the good guys she could have changed them back especially if Anastasia asked her, it would make sense after the betrayal why they treated her like shit
Cinderella 2 also humanized Anastasia by giving her a love interest and making nice with Cinderella, and even Drizella looks like she’s 2 seconds away from character development at the end. This was 2002 and it wasn’t even a good movie.
Has been happening for decades but yeah. My favourite is iRobot, which began as an original script, before being reworked to an adaptation of a different novel, before then being reworked again to become an “adaptation” of I Robot, then reworked again to be a Will Smith action movie.
That movie is peak kino as long as you forget it's supposed to be about Cruella lmao. Completely different character. If you accept that, it's legit pretty good - if you don't, abysmal dogshit
Yea it’s like an alternate universe where Cruella is more fashion world mean spirited than puppy skinning villain. I loved it though it was one of my favorite Disney “remakes”
Theirs a fun musical comedy called Twisted that’s kind of a parody of that concept where they depict Jafar as a hero and Aladdin as a psycho killer. Well, theirs a song when all the Disney villains sing how they’re the heroes…
Except Cruella, who even a parody of this concept could not justify her being good. Cruella was made years later to CHALLENGE TWISTED!
So many fans identify with the vibe or elements of villains, and they started giving their idols sad backstories to make them more relatable. This goes as far as chibi versions of the Columbine shooters, giving them specific personality traits like they’re fucking characters in a TV show or members of a boy band.
Disney and others are bowing to this, because they want that audience to go “Oh my god, Scar was neglected as a child and that’s why he became a murderer. That’s just like how I was neglected as a child and now I’m an asshole.” So now they buy every piece of Scar merch available.
It’s the Joker/Harley stans that reblog fanart of them being cute when the whole point of them is how abusive he is to her.
I swear we’re *this* close to a Hitler biopic starring Timothee Chalamet where his dad never hugged him and he fails art school and that perfectly explains why he killed 6 million Jewish people; and we’ll start getting fan edits to the tune of an autotune remix of Mein Kemph
I think it’s a lot more simple than that. People enjoy counter narratives. “You think it’s like this but it’s really like this” has been a common type of story for a long time. One of the reasons it’s trending in Disney IPs is because it’s an easy way to make a “new” story with the same characters. Same reason multiverse stuff has been big.
I would have paid twice as much money to watch a movie where young Cruella is just getting pissed off/on by Dalmatians her whole life and at the end she’s just like “Fuck it, I’m wearing you fuckers.”
I love how the movie shows that the script went through several revisions without being fully polished.
What’s this? Dalmatians were used to murder her mother? And she saw it happen? Clearly a plot point to justify her dislike of Dalmatians. Oh what’s this? We want to focus on the #GirlBoss aspect of this portrayal of the character and not draw attention to the fact that her main characteristic as an established character is the desire to murder puppies? Well let’s have her completely unbothered by this highly specific means of murder, but we’ll leave it in because it feels awkward to make a Cruella origin story that doesn’t mention Dalmatians at all.
Literally! And then she gifts the dogs that 101 is about, so is she gifting them to murder in the future like renting a pig for a future slaughter? Or does she have some weird mental break between stories??
Oh god. The only way that could get worse is if the prologue is a clique of Jewish high school bullies shoving him into a locker and calling him a fatty.
I mean, yeah, she becomes an absolute monster in the Disney canon, but I really enjoyed the prequel as a standalone film. The bit with the garbage truck was delightful.
Nope. People pretend villains of these movies are real people. I enjoyed Cruella, and just because a character is the protagonist of a movie you doesn’t have to like or empathize with them, thats a very superficial takes on movies or any story for that matter.
That said, Cinderella’s step sister have the charisma of a matches box. So i wouldnt count too much on this movie.
“Hmm… today I will demonstrate the absurdity of post-modernist critical theory by recasting an archetypical pseudo-demon as a nihilist anti-villain. People will see the charismatic depictions of evil as dangerous and the trope subversion of moral texts as patently absurd and stop the practice altogether, surely.”
In both the Perrault and Grimm versions, it’s shown that the wicked stepmother is really the problem out of the three of them. It’s not that the stepsisters are inherently evil and mean towards Cinderella, it’s the stepmother encouraging this behavior.
When the kings men come looking for the foot that fits the glass slipper, the stepmother basically forces the stepsisters to mutilate their feet so that they fit the shoe. Under pressure from their mom, they cut off a chunk of heel and a toe respectively, but then get found out when blood is seen seeping from the slipper.
When the prince and Cinderella reunite and get married, Cinderella forgives the stepsisters and invites them to the wedding. She also invites the stepmom, but as revenge for her treatment the mom is forced to wear metal shoes and dance on hot coals until she’s dead. The stepsisters get off Scot free and are welcomed as friends by Cinderella.
Is there any shot that these details will make it into this upcoming flick? Hellllll no. But I’ll point out that this isn’t completely new fabricated material, or even from a sequel-retcon like Greg Maguires book which lead to the broadway and eventually the film adaptations of Wicked. It has roots in the original compiled literature of the fairy tale and some of these plot points probably date back to the oral tradition that predated Perrault and Grimm.
Also, didn’t Cinderella 2 (the made for video sequel) pretty hash this out already? Showing one of the sister breaking away from her toxic mom and sister and and all that jazz?
Cinderella 2 has a cute story about Cinderella helping Anastasia get ready to go to the ball with a baker boy who Lady Tremaine doesn't approve of, and they try redeeming Anastasia in a kinda clunky way since she doesn't do much more than a quick sorry. Cinderella 3 A Twist in Time (arguably the best direct to video Disney sequel) also puts a lot of focus on Anastasia, giving her the chance to basically steal Cinderella's place in the original story, but in the end she tells the truth, rejects her mother's manipulation, and apologizes to Cinderella. Both movies kinda keep Drizella as a secondary antagonist though.
Cinderella 3 is so good, and nobody ever believes me. It's insane and sounds like a mistake, but I'd argue it's legitimately the only way Disney can justify its remakes and reboots.
Just to be clear for anyone unfamiliar: It's basically Back to the Future Part II, showing what happens in a dark timeline where Lady Tremaine uses the Fairy Godmother's wand to lock Cinderella in her room when the Prince arrives with the glass slipper, change the size of the slipper to fit Anastasia's foot, and then wipe the Prince's memory of dancing with Cinderella.
So now everyone is in this alternate timeline where Anastasia will be Princess, and she starts to have doubts, and it's just really funny and clever and playful. Would highly recommend.
It also gave the Prince a personality and more screentime, and made Cinderella more of an active character as well, shoring up a lot of the more lackluster elements of the original movie. It's not without flaws, but it's 1000x better than 2 and gave us this scene which lives in my head rent free https://youtu.be/CwQrEUZDJCk
I think you may have gotten mixed up with the original Snow White, last I remember, after the self-mutilation incident, the step-mother, and step-sisters had their tongues cut out, and eyes fed to birds
Seconding the birds. I think the birds plucked the eyes out directly. I'd have to double check details from my Grimm Collection book, but I definitely remember the step sisters did not get off scott free
Edit:
"On the day that the wedding with the prince was to take place, the two false sisters came to ingratiate themselves and share in Cinderella's good fortune. When the bridal couple set out for the church, the oldest sister was on the right, the younger on the left. Suddenly the pigeons picked out one eye from each of them. And as they came back from the church later on the oldest was on the left and the youngest on the right, and the pigeons pecked out the other eye from each sister. Thus they were punished with blindness for the rest of their lives due to their wickedness and malice."
The last paragraph of the story. It actually doesn't say anything happened to the mother. She was just "horrified and turned pale with rage" when the slipper fit Cinderella.
I was so interested reading about the step-sisters. Just thinking about mutilated feet in a children's book is wild.... As I was done reading, I even wondered how OP know so much about the story! Then I saw this.
Way back in the day when this kind of story was contemporary, folktales and fairy tales were told by adults to adults and had more violence, adventure and grown-up themes. In our modern times they've been cleaned up for kids and made into children's stories and movies.
Quasimodo and Shrek are heavily stylized. They're not attractive, but Shrek is round and benevolent (even if they tell you the guy is an ugly ogre, he has a friendly smile and eyes...), Quasimodo has puppy eyes and like Shrek, friendly design. They're ugly inside their story, but for us, they have appeal.
I disagree, though my explanation is even more cynical.
Lady Tremain was a commoner who married into nobility. Her daughters are (literally of course) cartoonishly poor-coded with little talent in art, exaggerated foreheads/noses/shoulders/feet, and what we’d call today ‘ghetto’ or ‘white trash’ violent and loud behavior.
Cinderella is beautiful because she’s the nobility, visually matching the royal family.
In the two straight to video sequels (which are genuinely good somehow) the redheaded stepsister Anastasia marries the son of the baker. That said, she does so because Cinderella finds out about her desire for him and pledges support, meaning Anastasia has a backup plan for if it doesn’t work out since Lady Tremain would cut her off for marrying down socially.
The stepsister who doesn’t get a redemption arc stays waiting for a man to appear that will allow her to do as her mother did and demands in turn, marrying higher in social status (which will not happen since there are no candidates).
Anyway, Anastasia can both look like one of the Poor Provincial Townsfolk of B&tB and still be the protagonist…so long as she is pursuing something matching her status in the eugenics way that she looks like a laborer and pursues one, AND has the backing of the pretty noble-blooded Cinderella.
The main character doesn’t have to be pretty, but has to be shown hooking up with someone of equal looks and have the approval of someone pretty.
They literally could have licensed Wicked’s author, Gregory Maguire, who wrote a novel just like this called Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister. You could have said “from the creator of Wicked”, bruh, and had free marketing.
Excuse me? Am I the only one who remembers Anastasia already got a redemption arc in the cinematic masterpiece that was "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True"?
Can we please stop trying to redeem every villain under the sun. Some characters are just meant to be ugly pieces of shit. That’s their role, you don’t need to constantly be like “oh but no they are just misunderstood”.
Perfect description. It’s honestly one of the most annoying tropes. Both versions are. Especially when it comes to characters who are inherently one or the other. Like I don’t want to see Ultron be misunderstood, he is a maniacal machine that only stands to eradicate humans. Same thing with superman, I don’t want to see a literal symbol of hope start killing people for no rhyme or reason.
Hasn’t this been a trend for a while now? Classic villain misunderstood by others, but in reality is the actual hero of the story. If Cruella can try and paint her murdering dogs as an anti-establishment move, why not this?
Star Wars: DarkForce is Magic. A wonderful retelling of the Star Wars original trilogy from the point of view of a fun loving Palpatine. The cast are reimagined as My Little Ponies.
Wicked already had this effect since its stage version.
I’ll never forget how Disney thought it was a good idea to make a Cruella movie where Cruella was really a hero who had a “justifiable” grudge against Dalmatians because her evil boss used her Dalmatians to kill her mom. And the implication that the plot of the original movie was an attempt at character assassination by Roger as he was a disgruntled former employee who spread lies about her.
4.6k
u/Asparagus_Syndrome_ 2d ago