DVDizzy Forum

Disney's Divinity wrote:FWIW, Cruella is failing at whatever 'new' thing it's attempting to be, too; at least Angelina Jolie made Maleficent worth seeing. Looks like Victoria Smurfit on OUAT will end up being the superior version of the comic Cruella take.

I mean, we haven't seen a single frame of film yet. The only official released image seems to have gotten positive reception. At this point in Maleficent's production, all we had were set photos of Angelina in her brown outfit with her hair down walking in a field and being hoisted around on harnesses. Didn't exactly seem like anything we were familiar with.

Suffice it to say, I don't think anything can be interpreted from set photos. To confidently claim that the film is "failing" at anything at this point is a reach. And to already claim another version is superior without seeing any frame of the completed performance indicates you have a bias towards this because it's not what you had in mind. You are free to have that opinion, but it's backlash like this from literally the leanest of information that has given us nearly shot-for-shot remakes.

I easily prefer whatever this is.

lord-of-sith wrote:You are free to have that opinion, but it's backlash like this from literally the leanest of information that has given us nearly shot-for-shot remakes.

Good. I prefer those. If you don't, that's your problem. There's no doubt in my mind that Aladdin and B&tB easily surpass Maleficent, Alice in Wonderland, and, yes, this--even without having seen it yet. You don't have to see every film in existence to already know ahead of time it's going to be garbage.

One of the common worries I see on these boards is that Disney is "replacing" their animated characters with these new versions. While I feel those worries are always misguided, I think it's ironic that those same people fret more over these heavily changed versions than the carbon-copy versions. Wouldn't versions that change a lot from the source material stand less of a chance of "replacing" them than versions that slavishly try to mimic the originals?

No one is really going to conflate the Red Queen from the new films with the Queen of Hearts from the animated Alice in Wonderland, because they are very different portrayals. Meanwhile, James Earl Jones now has a lesser performance of the exact same role because no one could bear to have him replaced. So why make the movie? Money, obviously. But at least I understand where something like this Cruella movie is coming from artistically. There's something different and, dare I say, interesting to do.

lord-of-sith wrote:One of the common worries I see on these boards is that Disney is "replacing" their animated characters with these new versions.

Well, that's not me. Every time everyone starts complaining about the re-makes being Disney's attempt to replace the originals, I'm usually arguing the opposite. These are just money-grabbers that will be forgotten in 10-15 years just like the Glenn Close film. I imagine they'll be re-made again in 20 years with the new, big actors of the day at that time. The movie-making business is going to cycle like this. They don't take risks anymore.

This is the problem about putting everyone in one box. Everyone here has a problem with the re-makes (and I do mean nearly everyone)--but they all have different problems. Mine aren't theirs and theirs aren't mine.

Disney's Divinity wrote:This is the problem about putting everyone in one box. Everyone here has a problem with the re-makes (and I do mean nearly everyone)--but they all have different problems. Mine aren't theirs and theirs aren't mine.

I certainly wasn't trying to put everyone in one box. Hence my phrasing of "One of the common worries." I'm glad to hear that you don't subscribe to that mindset, but it was RAMPANT in the thread for the original Maleficent back in 2014. I guess, ultimately, I'd rather these "re-imaginings" take different and unexpected routes, even if it doesn't turn out amazingly. You do not, and that is perfectly fine!

I'm glad I have AMC A-list, because The Lion King was one of the first times I legitimately felt I wasted money at the cinema.

Oh, yeah, I remember how people were--are--towards Maleficent. I have often defended Maleficent, because I didn't mind what we got with that film. I don't really consider it or even Cruella "re-makes" exactly anyway. They're more offshoots. I don't think Maleficent's perfect, but I love Jolie in the role. Same with Alice--the overall film isn't that great, but I did love HBC and Hathaway as the Red and White Queens.

But I do think B&tB and Aladdin are much better than those, by far. I haven't seen TLK yet to judge that one. TJB is so far the only live-action film they've made that diverges greatly from the animated film and turned out great.

Thanks estefan and UmbrellaFish and lord-of-sith. I am really looking forward to this movie. I don't really like the costumes we have seen so far, at all actually, but it's Emma Stone and what may turn out to be an interesting story, so I wanna see this.

Sotiris wrote:

estefan wrote:Emma Stone is apparently taking more inspiration from the animated film's version on the character, anyway.

How do you figure? Everything we've seen and learned about this Cruella so far bares very little resemblance to her animated counterpart.

We read in an article that Emma Stone said she was inspired a little from Glenn Close and a little from the animation for her take, from here:

As for her inspiration, Stone said she is looking both to Glenn Close, who portrayed Cruella in Disney's beloved live-action adaptation of 101 Dalmatians in 1996, as well as the original 1961 animated classic One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

"I think she's obviously the GOAT," Stone said of Close, "but I also have just loved the cartoon for a really long time."

Sotiris wrote:

estefan wrote:Emma Stone is apparently taking more inspiration from the animated film's version on the character, anyway.

How do you figure? Everything we've seen and learned about this Cruella so far bares very little resemblance to her animated counterpart.

Exactly, despite what Emma Stone might say, we've seen little to nothing to say that her performance is based on the animated character. If we didn't know she was playing Cruella, most of us would be hard pressed to figure out what character she is.

Remember Joanna Lumley as Aunt Spiker? Put a black and white hairdo and a fur coat on her and you have a perect Cruella.

https://www.themakeupgallery.info/chara ... lpeach.htm

More set photos:


Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... ondon.html

Are the filmmakers purposefully trying to make her look as unglamorous and unfashionable as possible? Even this look, which is really easy to make look chic, oddly isn't.

It seems they got the wrong costume designer for this film.

Glenn Close had iconic outfits whereas the ones Emma Stone is wearing don't even seem worthy for the bargain bin.

Rowi wrote:Remember Joanna Lumley as Aunt Spiker? Put a black and white hairdo and a fur coat on her and you have a perect Cruella.

https://www.themakeupgallery.info/chara ... lpeach.htm

You're so right. I never even realized the resemblance but she really does remind me of the animated Cruella.

Is this film not still a prequel?

DisneyJedi wrote:Is this film not still a prequel?

No, it's got no ties to the Glenn Close films and it doesn't appear that she's a producer anymore either.

JeanGreyForever wrote:Glenn Close had iconic outfits whereas the ones Emma Stone is wearing don't even seem worthy for the bargain bin.

So true.

JeanGreyForever wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Is this film not still a prequel?

No, it's got no ties to the Glenn Close films and it doesn't appear that she's a producer anymore either.

Um.....

Really bizarre that they would include Glenn Close and then throw her away not long after. What was the point?

JeanGreyForever wrote:Glenn Close had iconic outfits whereas the ones Emma Stone is wearing don't even seem worthy for the bargain bin.

Rowi wrote:Remember Joanna Lumley as Aunt Spiker? Put a black and white hairdo and a fur coat on her and you have a perect Cruella.

https://www.themakeupgallery.info/chara ... lpeach.htm

You're so right. I never even realized the resemblance but she really does remind me of the animated Cruella.

Thank you so much for your kind response! I’m glad I’m not the only one!

Wish Julianne Moore got the Baroness role. She has done few movies of this kind before.

Emma Thompson was In Beauty and the Beast and Nanny Mcphee already.
Kidman would have great because She is amazing in every role.

At least they didn’t cast Demi Moore who by now is not a major at all. Her heyday was almost 20 years ago. Charlize Theron feels bit Younger than Thompson , Kidman and Julllian. Feels weird was considered for the same role as those. But maybe i just feel that way because Theron’s big break came After the three actresses mentioned were already Famous.


I still am optimistic, Emma Stone is a great actress , I Tonya was a very good movie and Aline Brosh McKenna worked the Screenplay. Plus it’s a completely new perspective on the original story.

That’s Four really good things Cruella got in it’s favor