Cruella

OU812 · 17-02-2021 3:14pm #1

Looks like Disney’s take on a joker style origin story

https://youtu.be/gmRKv7n2If8

MisterAnarchy · 17-02-2021 4:11pm

OU812 wrote: »

Looks like Disney’s take on a joker style origin story

https://youtu.be/gmRKv7n2If8

Highly doubtful looking at the writers.

Its Disney, so this will be primarily aimed at as wide an audience as possible so will probably be PG-13 . £££

bnt · 17-02-2021 8:29pm

Well, she does say "I'm just getting started", and the cars place the story in the 1970s (Ford Granada, anyone?), so I smell "franchise".

RabbleRouser2k · 17-02-2021 8:31pm

Looks like a bad parody.

The SNL 'Grouch' parody was more faithful to the character than this.

They seem to be trying to make her into Tim Burton's 'Selina Kyle/ Catwoman' from Batman Returns.

On the plus side, it'll at least be funny. Unintentionally so, mind.

CastorTroy · 17-02-2021 8:46pm

So are people expected to like her, even though she's known for killing animals for clothes and attempted to kill puppies?

RabbleRouser2k · 17-02-2021 8:50pm

CastorTroy wrote: »

So are people expected to like her, even though she's known for killing animals for clothes and attempted to kill puppies?

I expect it's going to be like Maleficent-usual 'make villainess sympathetic' kinda deal.

Ultimately it ruined Maleficent.

Someone I know made decent point about the film. Folks have been stuck in lockdown, many of them with their pets, many of whom are dogs.

Trying to make a villain who kills dogs for their fur sympathetic is a hard sell.
After the pandemic, it's damn near an impossibility.

pixelburp · 17-02-2021 8:54pm

CastorTroy wrote: »

So are people expected to like her, even though she's known for killing animals for clothes and attempted to kill puppies?

That was my first, exact thought. This is a character who revelled in a desire to skin dogs. Don't really want to watch that characters rise/fall. Methinks this film will try for the angle of "here's someone even MORE evil", just so the script can sidestep Cruella's notoriety, and spin her as some misunderstood creature.

TBH I long checked out from these Disney live action remakes and prequels. The barrel is being well and truly scrapped for every last nostalgic dollar and, to hell with that.

RabbleRouser2k · 18-02-2021 2:39am

The Babylon Bee has a funny parody of the current 'explain away a villainess' origins so as to make her sympathetic'.

https://babylonbee.com/news/disney-announces-new-movie-telling-sympatheic-feminist-origin-story-of-xenomorph-queen

Dades · 18-02-2021 1:32pm

If The Rock can buddy up with The Stath in the F&F franchise, then Hollywood knows we're willing to forget anything we already know.

FunLover18 · 18-02-2021 4:06pm

pixelburp wrote: »

That was my first, exact thought. This is a character who revelled in a desire to skin dogs. Don't really want to watch that characters rise/fall. Methinks this film will try for the angle of "here's someone even MORE evil", just so the script can sidestep Cruella's notoriety, and spin her as some misunderstood creature.

TBH I long checked out from these Disney live action remakes and prequels. The barrel is being well and truly scrapped for every last nostalgic dollar and, to hell with that.

I would have thought the same about The Joker but that film made a billion dollars. I can't see this doing anywhere near that but Hollywood does seem obsessed at the moment with making horrible people seem sympathetic ... I wonder why :pac:

pixelburp · 18-02-2021 4:16pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

I would have thought the same about The Joker but that made a billion dollars. I can't see this doing anywhere near that but Hollywood does seem obsessed at the moment with making horrible people seem sympathetic ... I wonder why :pac:

It is an odd trend ATM all right; I dunno. I think with Joker, that film really benefited from the hysterics across the internet before it even came out; all resulting in a cinematic Streisand Effect. Who didn't want to see the movie that would apparently cause incels to riot?

But both with Joker, and something more equivalent like Maleficent, the evil characters felt outsized enough you could make them the protagonists. Being as they were a supervillain and fantasy, evil witch respectively.

Cruella instead is a nasty woman who wanted to skin puppies, and ... that's a big, very relatable level of evil. Even the trailer is nodding at it, with that shot of Dalmations looking worried; so this film's obviously going to nod towards that malevolence. That's an odd choice; "hey, don't forget this woman will eventually want to kill pupsters!" :pac:

FunLover18 · 18-02-2021 4:27pm

pixelburp wrote: »

It is an odd trend ATM all right; I dunno. I think with Joker, that film really benefited from the hysterics across the internet before it even came out; all resulting in a cinematic Streisand Effect. Who didn't want to see the movie that would apparently cause incels to riot?

But both with Joker, and something more equivalent like Maleficent, the evil characters felt outsized enough you could make them the protagonists. Being as they were a supervillain and fantasy, evil witch respectively.

Cruella instead is a nasty woman who wanted to skin puppies, and ... that's a big, very relatable level of evil. Even the trailer is nodding at it, with that shot of Dalmations looking worried; so this film's obviously going to nod towards that malevolence. That's an odd choice; "hey, don't forget this woman will eventually want to kill pupsters!" :pac:

I actually feel the opposite, like you say skinning puppies is relatable but it's an accepted evil in a way because there is a fur trade and when you really get down to it is fur trade really that much worse than the meat trade and I say that as someone who loves meat. But these are accepted evils within society to a degree and therefore I actually think it's easier to make Cruella relatable than it is someone like Joker who, you know, kills people.

Anyway I probably I won't be seeing this because as a rule I don't like the idea of giving well established villains sympathetic origins,it just dilutes them imo.

Also on a kind of related note, I always forget that there was a live action remake of 101 Dalmatians like 20 years ago before the recent blight.

CastorTroy · 18-02-2021 4:44pm

There was even a sequel, 102 Dalmatians

RabbleRouser2k · 19-02-2021 1:20am

pixelburp wrote: »

It is an odd trend ATM all right; I dunno. I think with Joker, that film really benefited from the hysterics across the internet before it even came out; all resulting in a cinematic Streisand Effect. Who didn't want to see the movie that would apparently cause incels to riot?

But both with Joker, and something more equivalent like Maleficent, the evil characters felt outsized enough you could make them the protagonists. Being as they were a supervillain and fantasy, evil witch respectively.

Cruella instead is a nasty woman who wanted to skin puppies, and ... that's a big, very relatable level of evil. Even the trailer is nodding at it, with that shot of Dalmations looking worried; so this film's obviously going to nod towards that malevolence. That's an odd choice; "hey, don't forget this woman will eventually want to kill pupsters!" :pac:

Joker was meant to cause mass violence among supposed crazy people. The media were left tragically disappointed when nothing happened.
Then a Machete fight broke out during a screening of Frozen 2. :rolleyes:
Crazy people will always find a reason to be violent. The Son of Sam killer thought his neighbour's dog was telling him to kill.

They'll neuter her in some way. Maleficent is one of the most amazing Disney villains (in the animated Disney film Sleeping Beauty)... the Angelina Jolie film is a trashfire cesspit that shouldn't exist.
Maleficent 'delighted' in being evil... practically bathed in it.
When the Angelina Jolie movie came out, they 'had' to make her a victim. Turned her from villain to hero, even changing the 'curse' she put on Beauty, and having her try to remove the curse.

I feel like I can 'guess' what the Cruella movie will do, and neither one will be intelligent. You'll either have a 'she's a tragic victim' or 'mentally ill'... and both are egregious and stupid.
(If Sia's movie 'Music', or the remake of The Witches taught folks anything, you potentially stigmatize anything-folks will have to grovel. Especially after The Witches led to apologies).

Hurrache · 19-02-2021 10:35am

Dades wrote: »

If The Rock can buddy up with The Stath in the F&F franchise,

Ha ha, but in fairness that film was great craic, no wonder Diesel got in a snot that he wasn't in it when it was a much more entertaining movie without him.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Cruella goes anyway.

JP Liz V1 · 19-02-2021 11:06pm

OU812 wrote: »

Looks like Disney’s take on a joker style origin story

https://youtu.be/gmRKv7n2If8

The Joker Wears Prada

JP Liz V1 · 20-02-2021 2:57am

Emma Stone channelling Eva Green

RabbleRouser2k · 20-02-2021 4:29am

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Emma Stone channelling Eva Green

More like she's trying to imitate Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle, from Batman Returns.

Even down to the 'I am woman, hear me roar' line.

MisterAnarchy · 06-03-2021 12:29am

The Critical Drinker isnt a fan of the trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRcD-62Tsn4

Agent Coulson · 31-03-2021 10:10pm

This will debut on Disney+ on the same day as it's cinema release on the Premier Access section.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/disney-postpones-black-widow-shang-chi-1234935874/

Sunny_Arms · 30-04-2021 11:14am

I dont get why disney has to do something like this. I mean it started with maleficent. Im getting descendants (the tv show) vibes with the direction they're going through.

speedboatchase · 30-04-2021 1:10pm

Sunny_Arms wrote: »

I dont get why disney has to do something like this. I mean it started with maleficent. Im getting descendants (the tv show) vibes with the direction they're going through.

It saves them from doing something original.

Sunny_Arms · 03-05-2021 5:29am

speedboatchase wrote: »

It saves them from doing something original.

it's like their creative juices/creative staff are running out of ideas.

MisterAnarchy · 21-05-2021 11:17am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON2_e1HB1JM

Florence + The Machine have released a new song, Call Me Cruella.

The single features on the soundtrack for the new feature-length Cruella, Disney’s origin film for the One Hundred And One Dalmatians villain.

speedboatchase · 02-06-2021 2:05pm

Watched this in a cinema (!) here in UK. Lots of fun, great period detail, amazing soundtrack, exceptional performance from Emma Thompson BUT... it has about four acts. It feels like a condensed series at times rather than a movie. I went from loving what I was seeing in the middle of the film to hoping it would wrap up to halt my declining admiration for it.

Enjoyable, but could've used a tough edit.

silverharp · 02-06-2021 11:11pm

Has a high score on RT with the audience 97% but looks like a bit of a flop especially as it had a $200m cost , one of those films falling between stools

pixelburp · 03-06-2021 12:56am

That's a ludicrous budget if true and there were no major reshoots. For what amounts to The Joker Wears Prada; I'm not even sure how you could get to that number - though maybe the failure might signal the end to the live action dícking around

silverharp · 03-06-2021 8:59am

It did much worse than Mulan (39% lower) and A Quiet Place 2 did much better on a production cost of $61m, the film probably streamed another million watches so thats another $30m

https://screenrant.com/cruella-movie-budget-cost/

Cruella's production budget is reportedly $200 million, making it a very expensive endeavor. That price tag is higher than other Disney live-action re-imaginings like Aladdin ($183 million), Beauty and the Beast ($160 million), and Maleficent: Mistress of Evil ($185 million). Cruella's budget is more in line with what one would expect from a tentpole comic book adaptation.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3708126721/

Grosses
DOMESTIC (64%)
$28,631,077
INTERNATIONAL (36%)
$16,100,000
WORLDWIDE
$44,731,077

Outkast_IRE · 03-06-2021 9:02am

Hopefully a signal to disney to stop producing mediocre adaptations nobody asked for and concentrate on some original content.

silverharp · 03-06-2021 9:47am

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Hopefully a signal to disney to stop producing mediocre adaptations nobody asked for and concentrate on some original content.

I dont know what they were thinking, its not a kids film, nobody was going to buy into a female Joker film stupid idea.

03-06-2021 9:58am

silverharp · 03-06-2021 10:15am

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The Joker Wears Prada

The Devil Wears Prada cost $35m and took in over $300m

03-06-2021 11:48am

silverharp wrote: »

The Devil Wears Prada cost $35m and took in over $300m

The King's Speech cost $15m and worldwide took in $427m.

TheValeyard · 03-06-2021 11:51am

Take it this is worth a skip so?

03-06-2021 11:53am

TheValeyard wrote: »

Take it this is worth a skip so?

A prequel story to a character no-one really cared about in the first place? I won't be queuing at midnight to see it, thats for sure.

pixelburp · 03-06-2021 12:01pm

silverharp wrote: »

The Devil Wears Prada cost $35m and took in over $300m

Deleted User wrote: »

The King's Speech cost $15m and worldwide took in $427m.

Heck the source of this segue, Joker, cost a mere $55 million and made $1+ billion. But then Warners basically didn't give a crap about Joker and let Phillips make his own film. Whereas like I said, unless there were major reshoots, someone made away like bandits with Cruella, no doubt exploiting opened, corporate purse strings.

MisterAnarchy · 03-06-2021 12:38pm

200m seems like a shocking figure.
I'd imagine that there isnt much cgi in the film, so that should have kept the costs low.

CastorTroy · 03-06-2021 1:25pm

Never watched it but watched the Pitch Meeting.
Seems they have a lot of licensed music which drove the budget up.

03-06-2021 5:20pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Heck the source of this segue, Joker, cost a mere $55 million and made $1+ billion. But then Warners basically didn't give a crap about Joker and let Phillips make his own film. Whereas like I said, unless there were major reshoots, someone made away like bandits with Cruella, no doubt exploiting opened, corporate purse strings.

Top Gun 2 which had a lot of CGI plus Tom Cruises fee was $152m.

You would really wonder how they managed to spend 200m on Cruella.

mikhail · 03-06-2021 8:09pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Top Gun 2 which had a lot of CGI plus Tom Cruises fee was $152m.

You would really wonder how they managed to spend 200m on Cruella.

If Cruise took a fee. He may well take points at this stage.

bnt · 03-06-2021 8:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Top Gun 2 which had a lot of CGI plus Tom Cruises fee was $152m.

You would really wonder how they managed to spend 200m on Cruella.

The usual answer to that question would be: Hollywood Accounting. Quote:

Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in taxes and royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.

pixelburp · 03-06-2021 8:45pm

Ah, nothing ever solidifies my raging left wing sensibilities than when I read about corporations' deft avoidance to pay their share of tax. Eat the Rich n' all.

As to Cruella, I wonder what projections might have been like had cinemas been a global going concern. I can't seriously believe this was ever thought to have billion dollar potential. It's one thing to remake a beloved classic in live action and watch the money flood in, this always smelt like a weird, brave swing (insofar as nostalgia gouging can be considered brave)

Outkast_IRE · 03-06-2021 8:56pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah, nothing ever solidifies my raging left wing sensibilities than when I read about corporations' deft avoidance to pay their share of tax. Eat the Rich n' all.

As to Cruella, I wonder what projections might have been like had cinemas been a global going concern. I can't seriously believe this was ever thought to have billion dollar potential. It's one thing to remake a beloved classic in live action and watch the money flood in, this always smelt like a weird, brave swing (insofar as nostalgia gouging can be considered brave)

Another factor they are going to have to take account of in the future is that by fracturing the market so badly for streaming services they have fueled piracy.
They have ignored the lessons of the music industry and decided they all need their own service and charge their own sub. Whilst spending billions to develop their own platforms and purchase content.

I dont know anyone who can afford HBO/Sky , Disney , Netflix , Prime and the host of others you would need to access all the content out there.

If they all contributed to a platform and charged a reasonable fee for a series then lots of people would take that option. Alot of people have bought new tvs and sound systems in the pandemic and will skip the cinema for mediocre releases.

Busi_Girl08 · 04-06-2021 10:51pm

Well I liked it

A brain at the door prequel, I stuck it on out of morbid curiosity more than anything to see just how they can make a more sympathetic character out of her,

and in fairness, they didn't really, well mostly. There were enough tonge-in-cheek references and teasers throughout, and it ends on a question mark of whether it's retcon and she's not a puppy killer after all, or if that's all to come

.

Great period piece, great casting (loved Emmas Stone and Thompson), FANTASTIC soundtrack

nice little bit of the showbands at one stage

.

Was it necessary? No.
Was it a blatant watered down female version of Joker? Yes
Was it a bit of fun for a couple of hours? I thought so.
Did a can and a half of cider help? Probably

bnt · 04-06-2021 11:37pm

I watched this tonight, and boy is it long. I had to insert an intermission before the fourth act. I thought it was OK as a vehicle for two very good actresses to chew the scenery, while the rest of the main cast were relatively understated.

I can hear where a good chunk of the budget went: on the soundtrack. The rights to use Ike & Tina Turner's cover of Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love, or The Beatles' Come Together, can not have been cheap, and the whole film is stuffed with good 60s and 70s songs. The last time I remember being hit over the head like this, with songs telling me how to feel, was Sleepless In Seattle.

Midnight_EG · 06-06-2021 1:02am

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

This is gonna sound strange but I was enjoying it and it got a few laughs out of me until Disney pussied out after the subversive reveal that she did, in fact, skin the dogs with "lol not really". This isn't a spoiler because this is Disney so you should know by now that they're never going to make teh main character an actual villain.

It was still Disney in 1996 that had Cruella order the skinning of the Dalmatians.

Watched this evening, very fun and the two Emma's nailed their respective roles IMO

06-06-2021 6:10am

Girlfriend put this on a couple of days ago. Didn't realise it was a new movie or there was any hype. I thought it was grand enough for what it is and she thought it was good.

Midnight_EG · 06-06-2021 12:25pm

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

The fundamental difference being that was 1996 and this is 2021 and this is an origin story where the central focus is on getting you to root for the main character.

And they did it well, IMO

Outkast_IRE · 06-06-2021 8:32pm

Decent film overall - 7/10. Not a classic but not a bad way to spend a few hours either.

It could do with a little editing to shorten it up.

The narration in the first 15mins is a little bit grinding in that its really spelling it out for you.

The music is hit after hit , but maybe its all a little bit too obvious and on the nose. Not a fan of how the music was used in this movie.

The "twist" in the final act had me thinking how sloppy and loose the writing and editing were in general.

Cruella's Henchmen , i am not sure why they were still hanging around by the end.

Its modern disney with excellent production values etc. But there is no edge to the movie and its in dire need of a sharper edge.

bnt · 06-06-2021 9:09pm

I ended up wondering what could have changed in Cruella between the end of this film and the start of the original book. In that she's a maniac obsessed with fur, even marrying a furrier just to get direct access to his fur inventory. At that point, to her, the puppies are merely a source of fur to be exploited. Jasper and Horace are happy to follow her orders. We know she didn't kill the three Dalmatians she kidnapped for fur, this time, that's the best we can say.

If you read the 1956 book as a child, you wouldn't be blamed for asking why it was horrible to use puppies for fur, but OK to use minks, or foxes, or other animals: between that and the first movie, I'd like to think it helped to turn people against fur from any animal, long before PETA.

stargazer 68 · 06-06-2021 9:57pm

Well I thoroughly enjoyed it and I'm not really a Disney fan. Even spotted the Joe Dolan song in the middle of it which was a surprise.

Cruella

Comments