DVDizzy Forum

jeremy88 wrote:The Quail *PHEASENT* bird from Bambi:


She is underrated, because she couldnt keep quiet, she couldnt contain herself, she cracked..."I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANY LONGER!" *fly fly* BANG!!!

And you know what? It's all her fault why all those animals that day got killed by the hunter...

Do I have sympathy for this terribly underrated bird? None what so ever.

OMG! LMAO

MagicMirror wrote:
The reason that Cruella De Vil is currently underrated as a powerful villain (after enjoying quite a lot of praise in the early 90s) in my opinion is that later incarnatians of the character have not been as great. Glenn Glose's performance was great, but it went wrong when she fell into tubs of goo, was crushed by pigs and scared by raccoons. The version in the animated series was similarly a 'victim' in this respect. This seems to have succeeded in diminishing the menace of the original animated version, who we could never imagine having things fall on her head - it's akin to Maleficent tripping over her robes or Ursula getting stuck in a doorway; it just shouldn't happen even if it logically could.

Very well put. Cruella De Vil, in her original animated incarnation, is easily my favourite of the female villians, and I remember the days when she was frequently cited as a definitive example of evil. But I agree that the past decade has not been good to her.

There are numerous reasons why I've never been able to endear myself to the 1996 live action remake, but one of the most pressing is that, instead of remaining true to the menace and iciness of Cruella as we knew her (which Glenn Close certainly had it in her power to do, I believe) they ultimately remodelled her as a bungling Home Alone-type villian, who isn't capable of taking one step forward without falling into some form of painful physical humiliation (it didn't help matters that, by 1996, the Home Alone formula had been done to death enough times already, but seeing such a well-respected and iconic villian at the receiving end really hurt).

I'm still hopeful that, come the anticipated PE release of One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Disney will do more to promote the film, and the original Cruella may find her way back into the spotlight once again. Until then, Cruella and all of her animated co-stars (Pongo, Perditta, Roger, Anita et al) will reside close to the top of my own list of underrated characters. It's a pity that such a great and influential (yes, it is) classic has been left floating around on the back burner for so long, with very little in the way of promotion or merchandising. Whatever dalmatian stuff I've been able to find for the past few years in the Disney store has been exclusively focussed upon that cursed live action remake.

I would be more likely to call Cruella an overrated character. I love the character, but she is often called the greatest Disney villain, while I just never found her that imposing. Who are her victims? Defenseless little puppies! Yes, that makes her possibly crueller than your average villain, but not really more intimidating. Much less, I'd say. You fear for the puppies, but would you quake with fear in her presence? Plus, she had a comical side to her design and personality. She ranks as one of the funnier villains, in my opinion, just a notch above Medusa on the serious side. Because of that, I had no problem with the live-action film, which I loved. Though, the overused Home Alone formula is clear as day.

To me, the more sinister villains are the scary ones that I wouldn't expect to trip and fall into a bucket of batter. Villains like Maleficent, the wicked Queen, and Lady Tremaine (sp?) .

Caballero Girl wrote: Very well put. Cruella De Vil, in her original animated incarnation, is easily my favourite of the female villians, and I remember the days when she was frequently cited as a definitive example of evil. But I agree that the past decade has not been good to her.

There are numerous reasons why I've never been able to endear myself to the 1996 live action remake, but one of the most pressing is that, instead of remaining true to the menace and iciness of Cruella as we knew her (which Glenn Close certainly had it in her power to do, I believe) they ultimately remodelled her as a bungling Home Alone-type villian, who isn't capable of taking one step forward without falling into some form of painful physical humiliation (it didn't help matters that, by 1996, the Home Alone formula had been done to death enough times already, but seeing such a well-respected and iconic villian at the receiving end really hurt).

I'm still hopeful that, come the anticipated PE release of One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Disney will do more to promote the film, and the original Cruella may find her way back into the spotlight once again. Until then, Cruella and all of her animated co-stars (Pongo, Perditta, Roger, Anita et al) will reside close to the top of my own list of underrated characters. It's a pity that such a great and influential (yes, it is) classic has been left floating around on the back burner for so long, with very little in the way of promotion or merchandising. Whatever dalmatian stuff I've been able to find for the past few years in the Disney store has been exclusively focussed upon that cursed live action remake.

Yes, hopefully the DVD will bring her old self back into fashion. The important thing is that in the original film she was always the one exerting the force - she was never the victim. The two live action films, the series and even the DTV sequel changed that, diminishing the character's menace.

I would be more likely to call Cruella an overrated character. I love the character, but she is often called the greatest Disney villain, while I just never found her that imposing. Who are her victims? Defenseless little puppies! Yes, that makes her possibly crueller than your average villain, but not really more intimidating. Much less, I'd say. You fear for the puppies, but would you quake with fear in her presence? Plus, she had a comical side to her design and personality. She ranks as one of the funnier villains, in my opinion, just a notch above Medusa on the serious side. Because of that, I had no problem with the live-action film, which I loved. Though, the overused Home Alone formula is clear as day.

To me, the more sinister villains are the scary ones that I wouldn't expect to trip and fall into a bucket of batter. Villains like Maleficent, the wicked Queen, and Lady Tremaine (sp?) .

That's exactly the point - Cruella's original animated version would never fall into a bucket of batter. What the live-action version did to Cruella is akin to Gus dropping a bucket of water on Lady Tremaine's head, Merryweather punching Maleficent with a boxing glove, or the Queen getting her cloak stuck in the door on the way to her lab. If any of these things happened, these characters would become comical. They would lose their menace.

Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston felt that the reason Medusa never reached Cruella's success was that Medusa was often the victim of slapstick. The second Snoops knocks her off the chair, she loses her menace and is no longer the motivation for the story. Cruella should deal out slapstick, of course, but she should never suffer it like her later versions did. That's why these later versions were not scary.

The closest villain to (original animated) Cruella is Stromboli; they fall into the same category in that they are both villains who could deal out comedy that did not make them lose their menace or scariness.

MagicMirror wrote: That's exactly the point - Cruella's original animated version would never fall into a bucket of batter. What the live-action version did to Cruella is akin to Gus dropping a bucket of water on Lady Tremaine's head, Merryweather punching Maleficent with a boxing glove, or the Queen getting her cloak stuck in the door on the way to her lab. If any of these things happened, these characters would become comical. They would lose their menace.

Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston felt that the reason Medusa never reached Cruella's success was that Medusa was often the victim of slapstick. The second Snoops knocks her off the chair, she loses her menace and is no longer the motivation for the story. Cruella should deal out slapstick, of course, but she should never suffer it like her later versions did. That's why these later versions were not scary.

The closest villain to (original animated) Cruella is Stromboli; they fall into the same category in that they are both villains who could deal out comedy that did not make them lose their menace or scariness.

You're missing my point, though. My point was, I never saw Cruella as a "scary" villain (hence my feeling that she is overrated). Her personality and design were just too comical to begin with. Because of that, I could believe that she would trip up. In fact, crashing her car almost feels similar. Just because we didn't ever SEE her fall into a bucket of batter in the original doesn't mean she wouldn't. After all, Glenn Close's Cruella wasn't the victim of slapstick till the climax, when she had to be defeated, so I really didn't see it as a problem. However, trying to follow such a defeat with a sequel may not have been the best idea, especially one that was so "out there." I still found part 2 watchable, but it has good and bad throughout.

So, I'm not saying Cruella doesn't "work." I love the character, but I don't get why people find her scary. Yes, she's dangerous,... to puppies. To me, she's always been one of the more comical villains. In fact, Glenn Close was probably more imposing until she was thwarted. Stromboli is far more intimidating due to his character design. I would even say that Medusa is more frightening and dislikable, because she basically kidnapped a child and put her through all sorts of abuse! Probably would have murdered Jenny at the end of it all. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but slapstick victim or not, I find someone like that more threatening than someone who wants to make puppies into a coat, as much as that idea repulses and offends me.

slave2moonlight wrote:I would even say that Medusa is more frightening and dislikable, because she basically kidnapped a child and put her through all sorts of abuse! Probably would have murdered Jenny at the end of it all. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but slapstick victim or not, I find someone like that more threatening than someone who wants to make puppies into a coat, as much as that idea repulses and offends me.

Medusa is certainly a nasty piece of work, but I wouldn't say I found her to be nearly as intimidating as Cruella. The moment that diminishes her menace by several notches, for me, is when she catches glimpse of Bernard and starts shrieking and screaming helplessly at Snoops to kill him. I suppose it's intended to be comical that a lady who keeps two heavyweight alligators (or crocodiles) as pets could be so scared senseless of a creature as tiny as a mouse, but it doesn't do her overall intimidation credit much good. Now, the issue never arises in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, but I have a feeling that if Cruella ever had a similar encounter with a mouse, she would simply step on it.

True, Cruella's always had her comical side from the start, but even if the puppies are the only ones who need fear for their lives at her hands, there's still something about her voice, her animation and her character design that I've found ever so malicious, right from when I was a kid. She talks with the iciest of tones, moves with the most tyranising of swaggers, and her eyes never falter with that crazed, cunning glint (in fact it intensifies during the climax). And, to borrow an expression from Frasier, she has a smile that could freeze Mercury. I think the funniest aspects of her character arise from her manic driving, and her final humiliation in this film - crashing her car against the tree and losing all hope of catching up with the dogs - seemed like a fitting comeuppence for her own relentlessness. The animals were willing to get their paws dirty as far as Horrace and Jasper were concerned, but Cruella remains a figure from which a clear distance must be maintained, something which enables her intimidation to remain intact. Rather than fighting her, the dalmatians simply want to escape from her shadow. Therefore, Cruella's undoing in this film seems much more appropriate - she falls victim purely to her own refusal to give up, as opposed to falling victim to a succession of traps which the animals had personally set for her, as in the remake, which felt much less satisfying.

Additionally, I think that the triviality of Cruella's motivation, when compared to Medusa's, actually serves to make her all the more intimidating. Slaughtering a whole load of innocent puppies simply for the sake of a fur coat would be a simply appalling act, but consider that all Cruella actually wants is another beautiful addition to her waldrobe (as opposed to Medusa, who presumably intends to capitalise financially from her own ill-gotten gains), and yet she's willing to go to such extreme lengths to ensure that she gets it, even to the point where she endangers her own life with her relentless driving. It's more than mere vanity; it's pure obsession. And coupled with all the things which I'd previously mentioned about her characterisation and design, it makes her truly terrifying. That's just my two cents.

To me, all the stuff you have pointed out about Cruella are what make her over-the-top. Cruella is great as a cartoon villain, but there's not enough realism to her for me to get any fear going. More crimes in the real world are about getting money than dog skin coats. I would rather have my dogs kidnapped than a child. It just isn't adding up to me. Medusa comes off much more believably villainous (even her "look" is more realistic), and therefore, closer to being "scary." And it does happen. People can be brave against much more imtimidating things, but jump on a chair when they see a mouse or a cockroach. Sure, Cruella would probably just step on a mouse, but I'm not convinced she would kill a little girl. I get the impression Medusa WOULD, no matter how much mice scare her. I'm not trying to overly praise the Rescuers though. I feel 101 Dalmatians is the better film, and the original Rescuers (unlike the sequel) is rather low on my list. Nevertheless, I consider Medusa to be far more of an intimidating threat than Cruella, despite my being a major dog lover.

what about live action disney......i LOVE Hook which has the most wonderful cast...u never see anything for that, just for peter pan.....i love RUFIO...i wanted to name my chihuahua after him and my bf wouldnt let me i havent really found any good memorabilia for that movie...

QueenRahel wrote:what about live action disney......i LOVE Hook which has the most wonderful cast...u never see anything for that, just for peter pan.....i love RUFIO...i wanted to name my chihuahua after him and my bf wouldnt let me i havent really found any good memorabilia for that movie...

That's not a Disney movie, actually. If you want to see a GREAT Peter Pan movie, see the live-action Peter Pan from a few years ago. It's FANTASTIC! It's also NOT Disney though. Anyway, I have an old pair of action figs from "Hook." I have one of Peter and one of Hook, of course. They're not that great though.

damn...dont know waht i was sayin i must have forgot this is ULTIMATE DISNEY...not all movies but i wish there was rufio stuff somewhere...just for memorabilia to add

You're missing my point, though. My point was, I never saw Cruella as a "scary" villain (hence my feeling that she is overrated). Her personality and design were just too comical to begin with. Because of that, I could believe that she would trip up. In fact, crashing her car almost feels similar. Just because we didn't ever SEE her fall into a bucket of batter in the original doesn't mean she wouldn't. After all, Glenn Close's Cruella wasn't the victim of slapstick till the climax, when she had to be defeated, so I really didn't see it as a problem. However, trying to follow such a defeat with a sequel may not have been the best idea, especially one that was so "out there." I still found part 2 watchable, but it has good and bad throughout.

Apologies, I understand you now. I'm not sure I agree though; I never got that feeling from the original animated version.

So, I'm not saying Cruella doesn't "work." I love the character, but I don't get why people find her scary. Yes, she's dangerous,... to puppies. To me, she's always been one of the more comical villains. In fact, Glenn Close was probably more imposing until she was thwarted. Stromboli is far more intimidating due to his character design. I would even say that Medusa is more frightening and dislikable, because she basically kidnapped a child and put her through all sorts of abuse! Probably would have murdered Jenny at the end of it all. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but slapstick victim or not, I find someone like that more threatening than someone who wants to make puppies into a coat, as much as that idea repulses and offends me.

I don't find her as scary as the Coachman or Chernabog, but I think she's in the same league as, if not higher than, Maleficent or Ursula. Ursula has a combination of entertainment and villainy, similar to Cruella, and I got much the same feeling - a mixture of amusement and terror.

slave2moonlight has explained it far better than me - it's a combination of Marc Davis' design and animation, Betty Lou Gerson't vocal performance, and the treatment of the character in the film (building up her 'reputation' among the other characters, for one thing).

To me, all the stuff you have pointed out about Cruella are what make her over-the-top. Cruella is great as a cartoon villain, but there's not enough realism to her for me to get any fear going. More crimes in the real world are about getting money than dog skin coats. I would rather have my dogs kidnapped than a child. It just isn't adding up to me.

I think it worked, since the film itself is told almost entirely from the dogs' perspective; the puppies are 'children', and they are the most important characters in the audience's eyes.

Sure, Cruella would probably just step on a mouse, but I'm not convinced she would kill a little girl.

I think she would, if that girl stood between her and her goal (or if the girl was in fashion ). She will do away with anything that gets in her way - she clearly didn't care what happened to the lorry driver, and was ready to throw him off a cliff if it got her closer to her goal. She was more ruthless than Medusa, in my opinion, and certainly more able, which I feel makes her scarier, and certainly more dangerous. And, as slave2moonlight said, it is all for one single goal, which is grim enough by itself.

what about live action disney......i LOVE Hook which has the most wonderful cast...u never see anything for that, just for peter pan.....i love RUFIO...i wanted to name my chihuahua after him and my bf wouldnt let me i havent really found any good memorabilia for that movie..

I wasn't too fond of the film 'Hook' (a bit too sickly sweet in places), but I absolutely love the soundtrack. It's safe to say that John Williams is a genius.

Bruno and the horse from Cinderella, and the other mice characters (neither of which appeared in the sequels)

the entire cast of Oliver & Company (except for Tito)

all the lionesses in The Lion King (especially Sarabi & Sarafina)

Duchess and Thomas O'Malley and dont forget Uncle Waldo!

the feather duster in Beauty and the Beast

Rajah (Jasmine's kitty!!!)

Max (Prince Eric's dog from The Little Mermaid)

Simba's son born at the end of TLK (where the hell was he in TLK 2???? LOL j/k!)

ummm...toon aspie....what is so great about the featherduster from beauty and the beast.......she doesnt even have a name, and is like the slut of the movie or something, just doing everyone in the castle behind the curtains also why NOT tito from Oliver n comp?? he is one of my fav from that movie and everyone loves chihuahuas....right?

toonaspie wrote:
Rajah (Jasmine's kitty!!!)

I think we can now blame Jasmine for people trying to have have tigers as pets.

toonaspie wrote:Simba's son born at the end of TLK (where the hell was he in TLK 2???? LOL j/k!)

He went over to Osamu Tezuka to become the star of Kimba the White Lion in a time parodox.

QueenRahel wrote:ummm...toon aspie....what is so great about the featherduster from beauty and the beast.......she doesnt even have a name, and is like the slut of the movie or something, just doing everyone in the castle behind the curtains ?

Her name is Babette. She was kind of a slut, though!

brownie wrote:

QueenRahel wrote:ummm...toon aspie....what is so great about the featherduster from beauty and the beast.......she doesnt even have a name, and is like the slut of the movie or something, just doing everyone in the castle behind the curtains ?

Her name is Babette. She was kind of a slut, though!

Ha, I'm not big on the French maid thing, but I suppose it depends on who it is. Don't like accents or "beauty marks" though, that's the main thing. HOWEVER, I don't remember her doing anybody but Lumiere, and I think she was under the impression that they were in an exclusive relationship. Isn't there a story in "Belle's Magical World" about them being a couple? I seem to remember that. Of course, Lumiere is not so loyal, since he also romanced Angelique, and who knows who else.

I think most of the Pinocchio characters are underrated. Maybe they won't be such when the movie is re-released on DVD.

I agree with others here about Humphrey the bear. I love him! Also Ludwig Von Drake and Archimedes.

YAY!!! another humphrey bear lover...i love hooked bear and other shorts involving him!

The most underrated character in animation history has to be Nanny from 101 Dalmations