I can’t wait to get a live action movie where Disney delves into the backstory of Gaston and they reveal that his mom got crushed by a bookshelf to explain why he hates educated women that read. 

Literally no one would’ve joked about Cruella hating Dalmatians because her mom got killed by them if they just chose a different dog or had a person do it or-

Like stop saying that people are stupid or should actually watch the movie “because she didn’t hate Dalmatians because of that blah, blah, blah.” People are making fun of Disney’s poor writing choices. They put ‘subtext’ (that felt pretty obvious) in this movie that they didn’t follow through with. People are meming shitty writing choices and bad story telling. People aren’t stupid, that’s why they’re making fun of it; because when you have something in a characters past that links to something in their present in such a direct way, you either need to connect the two, or show why and how they aren’t linked.

Pretty much everyone who watched the movie knows that Disney didn’t intend for Cruella’s mother getting pushed off a cliff by Dalmatians probably wasn’t intended to be the push for her to skin them later, but we also know that it was stupid for them to use the breed of dog that she went on to use for clothes as the ones to kill her mother. That’s sloppy story telling; they presented an obvious (and really horrible) reason for her to do the things she did and then pretty much said “no, lol. she likes the dogs and just kills them later cuz why not- dont you all kill the things you love later on?”

They pretty much did a shitty version of Killmonger’s story from the Black Panther movie, where he set out to kill T’Chaka because he killed Killmonger’s father and then settled for T’Challa because he was the next best thing, but instead of actually having her parent being killed by x thing or group and that being the reason she set out to kill from x thing or group, they just had it there and had no justification for her actions. People would probably be making similar memes if they showed T’Chaka killing Killmonger’s father and then had Killmonger try to kill T’Challa but literally just because and not because T’Challa’s father killed his.

If you can’t understand that people are meming shitty writing and understand the actual plot and that there was apparently literally no reason for her to try to skin the puppies of the dogs she gave to Anita and Rodger, then you don’t get to call other people stupid for understanding the movie and still not liking what they did with it. Just say that you like the movie; you’d sound less like a Disney bootlicker and like you actually know what you’re talking about.

This script really feels like it was written by one person up to her mom getting killed, and then picked up by another person who hated that being the reason she skinned dogs and totally changed it. People are mad because Disney completely disregarded an idea that they created and should’ve either used or cut.

Most of us understand that she didn’t kill Dalmatians because they were used to kill her mom, we just don’t understand why they didn’t have a different breed of dog do it (or hell, even a person), because it makes it seem like she only did what she did in 101 Dalmatians because Dalmatians were used to kill her mom.

It was so pointless to make the ‘murder weapon’ used to kill Cruella’s mom Dalmatians, because that sets up the idea that that’s why she skinned them later down the line, when she gets her little glare in at the dogs and moves on. Disney brought up what could’ve been a somewhat interesting plot point and then abandoned it.

There really wouldn’t have been a problem if they didn’t use Dalmatians or if they just made her a different character that didn’t go on to skin the exact breed of dogs that were used to kill her mother. Hell, if they advertised it as a reimagining, there would still be a lot of people mad because they could’ve used a different character, but a lot of people wouldn’t think it was nearly as stupid. If you can understand the plot, you should be able to understand this. If you can’t understand that people hate the bad writing and somewhat nonsense plot (in regards to the murder and stuff), then you can’t call other people stupid for “not understanding the movie.”

You’re calling people stupid/haters/irrational/whatever for joking about that stupid plot point because we “don’t understand the plot” when you don’t understand what most people are criticizing.

They also skipped out on using her original backstory from the book, which could’ve been incredibly entertaining if they did it write or doing a backstory for one of their villains that could’ve had an interesting story. Disney missed so many opportunities, wrote a stupid plot that doesn’t deliver on what it said it would (being a backstory for Cruella and showing what she did what she did), and still somehow had their stans convinced that we just wanted to hate the movie and didn’t have a problem with a genuine issue with the movie and its writing.

Just say you want Walt Disney himself to rise from the freezer to fuck you and go.

after reading my nth "stop making fun of the mind-controlled dalmatians pushing cruella's mom off a cliff it's so obvious you didn't watch the movie!!" post

I actually did go and watch the movie and now I have thoughts

- the aesthetics? incredible. anachronistic. you can just smell the marketing guy's cologne on them. we're in some vague year in the 1970s - and you don't do weird and gay in 1970s! women don't get to be at the top unless they're complete monsters married to old money, Emma Thompson's character says! - BUT as is the Way of the Mouse, the subtext remains an unfinished little squeak

- was Cruella being the poor kid at the posh school, her mom saying you belong here as anyone else supposed to be a critique of classism? maybe. every attempt this movie makes at not being shallow is one throwaway line from some character that the movie never bothers to develop

-more on that: the memed I am woman, hear me roar scene is from Cruella monologuing about how life sucks as a woman in the 70s; Artie makes a one-time remark about the vitriol they face for being out and "not normal" in the character's own words; the Baroness says a few things about women having to be absolute monsters to get anywhere. there's something in the movie, some sort of message. it just fizzles out as soon as it shows up and you end up with this shallow - but fun - ride

- this isn't a feminist movie. not even a ~~feminist grrrlllboss~~ movie. it doesn't really attempt to be imo. it is a cool and fun show, and most of the cast is white, and the gayness is not explicit to say in the least - I saw some people on here saying that Russia and China couldn't possibly edit Artie out without ruining the entire movie, but you know what? nowhere in the movie is it explicitly stated that Artie uses they/them pronouns and not he/him. nowhere in the movie is it explicitly stated that Artie is gay - maybe the abuse they face is because of their unconventional fashion choices, because of their uniqueness! isn't that what Artie says? isn't that why Estella was bullied at school - for looking different, not for being poor? you know that's not what they mean, and I know that's not what they mean, but it could easily be spun that way. just like the rest of the movie, it's full of plausible deniability and saying-something-but-not-quite. the Mouse's marketing guy strikes again

- and must every movie have a message? obviously not. but then why are you putting - and marketing - your nth "first openly gay character" into a movie set in the 1970s? with all this very gay punk/glam rock aesthetic? starring a character who is well-known to be a classist caricature, a social message?

- oh, but I had fun. I legitimately enjoyed the movie. Emma Stone and Emma Thompson carry the entire movie on their shoulders with their incredible performances. believe me when I say you're going to take Cruella seriously when she says those terribly hamfisted lines about being born brilliant, born bad, and a little bit mad. the music was incredible, although in the first half they put one banger after another and it 1) distracts from the scenes often 2) this doesn't make the scene any less hollow please stop.

- on the point of Dalmatian puppassassins - some seem to disagree, but I think that the movie was successful in setting up a campy, Lemony Snicket-y tone, so I wasn't that put off by that scene while watching. but after watching it, I thought - the fuck? you're killing the Dalmatian-skinner's mother with the actual dogs. why are you doing that?

- but she isn't a Dalmatian-skinner in this? yeah, I know, but you know the titular character is well-known for wanting to skin Dalmatian dogs, right? like when someone watches this movie, hopefully through toooootally legal channels, and they don't know what it's about except that it's about Cruella de Vil, it sets up some expectations. especially when you do it in the first five minutes of the movie, as pretty much the villain origin story to your titular character. why are you doing that? it wouldn't have this effect if the person whose mom gets killed by Dalmatian dogs wasn't Cruella fucking de Vil. what a dumbass choice

- I'd like to congratulate Artie for being the best "Disney's first openly gay character" so far

- I'd also like to state that I totally watched this movie through very legal channels

My final thoughts on Cruella after a long, sleep-induced snooze:

Things I liked:

The overall aesthetic and soundtrack were banging!! The costumers were really great, too. On a visual and audio level, it was very enjoyable.

I liked how Cruella, Jasper and Horace were friends and there was no forced romantic angle (besides some maybe flirting).

Emma Stone and Emma Thompson were very enjoyable with the scenery-chewing.

The fashion walk at the fountains was easily the coolest scene in the movie!

Things I didn’t like:

The overall plot did not make much sense. My friend defended it by saying it was a ‘re-imagining’ of the character. But to me, Cruella’s core personality is she’s narcissistic, rich, and has no moral code. She’s so obsessed with fur she doesn’t care what she has to do to get it. Her motives might seem too simple, but at the same time, rich vapid people don’t care about their impacts on the environment!

I don’t understand why they had to make her the misunderstood anti-hero. (See point 1).

The ‘spoiler’ about the Dalmatians attacking her mom is a red herring. The rest of the movie she takes care of dogs, including those same Dalmatians! I really just don’t understand the point of having those specific dogs pushing her mom off a cliff (because it’s Disney and they can’t have dog-mauling which is more realistic anyway). This is the big disconnect for me--Cruella loves fur to the point she wants to kill freaking puppies to get it. You think the ‘spoiler’ is the origin story, and it’s not. Re-imagining or not, it just doesn’t....fit.

The ‘girl boss’, ‘I am woman hear me roar,’ (with some ‘I’m NoT LiKe OtHeR GiRlSss’) schtick is just....ughdalkgjk. It’s cringe-y. Straight up. I’m all for little girls being unconventional and ‘rough’ (I think the actress did a great job!) but it’s so hamfisted. At one point the dialogue “I was woman and I roared...and roared...and roared” was legit embarrassing.

Disney’s fifth ‘openly gay’ character....lordt. The actor did a great job, but Disney should not be applauded for the barest fucking minimum. He was flamboyant...and that was IT. Absolutely nothing beyond him wearing some makeup and making comments about dressing how you want, despite your gender. It was one step about the Lefou disaster, but not much.

30 fucking dollars to watch it at home??? That’s insulting. My friend already rented it, so I watched it with her. But on a general principle I can’t agree with that. I have never spent $30 at a movie theater.

Overall...it was a fun movie. But I feel like it could’ve been done without being connected to the character Cruella. If you ignored the erratic plot, it was fun. And on a visual level, it was really good (besides some iffy CGI, especially on the dogs). It is not worth paying $30 to watch it at home.

But: If other people enjoyed it, I’m not gonna rag on them. I don’t think Disney should be praised on a story-telling or originality level. But if other people liked it, that’s their opinion and I’m not gonna make fun of anyone for it. I’m not a film snob, and while it’s fine to critique the movie, just don’t be snobby.