Emma Stone’s Controversial Remake Still Defines Disney’s Weirdest Live-Action Trend

by

Walt Disney is famous for its theme parks, TV shows, superheroes, and streaming services, but many still consider its classic animated films to be its greatest achievement. However, in the last ten years, Disney has created fewer original animated movies, choosing instead to remake its older stories with live actors. Emma Stone’s 2021 film is one of these remakes, though it differs somewhat from other blockbuster live-action adaptations like Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King.

Craig Gillespie directed Cruella, with production by Andrew Gunn, Emma Stone, and Glenn Close – who famously played Cruella in the original 101 Dalmatians films. The movie stood out from typical Disney productions, immediately captivating audiences with its striking visuals. Despite its imaginative style, Cruella wasn’t without flaws, making it a somewhat divisive film for Disney fans.

Cruella Followed a Weird Disney Trend

I’ve always seen Cruella De Vil as someone completely beyond saving, and honestly, she deserves that reputation. Trying to make a coat out of puppies? It’s monstrous! But what’s fascinating is that even she seemed to recognize how awful she was, and, in a strange way, wanted to be a better person – to redeem herself.

She was married to someone who worked with furs and had a reputation for mistreating animals, including her own cat. She saw animals solely as a way to make money.

Disney’s version of Cruella De Vil gave her a new twist – she’s portrayed as a high-fashion designer with her own successful fashion business. She becomes obsessed with the puppies of Pongo and Perdita, wanting to buy them all to make a luxurious fur coat. When their owners, Anita and Roger, refuse to sell, Cruella resorts to having the puppies stolen so she can still achieve her cruel goal.

The movie Cruella reimagined the origin story of the iconic villain, giving her a sympathetic backstory as “Estella.” The film portrays Estella (Emma Stone) as a creative and spirited child who travels to London with her mother, Catherine, hoping to improve their financial situation. While at a glamorous party at Hellman Hall, young Estella is pursued by the host’s aggressive Dalmatians, leading to the loss of a treasured necklace belonging to her mother. The dogs then chase Catherine off a cliff, causing her to fall to her death.

After being orphaned and wrongly blamed for her mother’s death, Estella moved to London and worked various temporary jobs. A lucky encounter with the famous fashion designer, Baroness von Hellman (Emma Thompson), landed her a position at her workshop. However, witnessing the Baroness’s cruel and immoral actions – and recognizing her mother’s necklace – revealed a shocking truth: the Baroness had deliberately caused Estella’s mother’s death using her dogs. Driven by revenge, Estella reinvented herself as Cruella, a rebellious fashion disruptor who sabotaged the Baroness’s fashion shows.

The story of Cruella, focusing on her fashion journey and her history with the Baroness, is certainly captivating, but it makes you wonder if she truly deserves this sympathetic portrayal. The movie completely reimagined her backstory, her reasons for acting as she did, and how Anita and Roger ended up with Pongo and Perdita. Surprisingly, the film reveals that Cruella was the one who originally gave them the puppies.

Disney has recently developed a curious habit of turning famous villains into characters we sympathize with. A prime example is Maleficent, originally the evil fairy in Sleeping Beauty who cursed Princess Aurora to die from a prick of a spinning wheel after not being invited to the princess’s christening. Although the curse was changed to put Aurora into a deep sleep instead of causing death, Maleficent remained known as a cruel and malicious villain.

In 2014, Maleficent’s story was retold, presenting her as a woman motivated by a desire to defend her kingdom from those trying to invade it. While still powerfully protective, she was reimagined as a villain who wasn’t truly malicious, but rather misunderstood. This new perspective continued in Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, and is expected to be the focus of the upcoming third film.

Disney Loves to Humanizes Iconic Villains, Which Isn’t Needed

Constantly turning classic villains, who have long been essential to popular stories, into heroes threatens to diminish what made those stories great. These beloved tales often need a clear villain to work, and simply making everyone a good person can be uninteresting. While the movie Cruella initially seems to offer a more complex and thoughtful story, it ultimately just makes a simple, good story unnecessarily complicated.

Honestly, the way they portrayed the dogs in the movie really bothered me. They made it seem like these poor animals were vicious killers, acting on orders, and painted Cruella as the one who was wronged! Even suggesting the Baroness was pulling the strings, the film still implied the Dalmatians were the aggressors. Then, Estella stages this elaborate scheme where she pretends to kidnap and kill the puppies to make a coat, even though they’re perfectly safe. It just doesn’t make sense! She intentionally destroys her own image, fakes her death, and then fully embraces this Cruella persona for… what? It felt completely unnecessary and confusing.

While Cruella was visually impressive and glamorous, it lacked a strong story. There wasn’t a real need to revisit Cruella De Vil, let alone turn her into a sympathetic character. Cruella is famous for being greedy, scary, and heartless, but this movie seemed to prioritize appealing to existing fans and nostalgia over building a compelling narrative. The attempts to make her likable felt forced, with flimsy justifications and a plot that kept repeating itself.

I’m really fascinated by this character’s arc. The movie has a chance to either deepen my sympathy for her, or finally reveal the darkness that seems to consume everyone else in the series. I’m eager to see which path they choose!

The 101 Dalmatians Franchise Has One of the Earliest Live-Action Histories

It might seem like live-action remakes are a recent trend, but the 101 Dalmatians series actually used live-action filmmaking techniques long ago. This happened before the studio understood how profitable live-action movies could be, and these films did a fantastic job of creating a world where Cruella De Vil was perfectly, delightfully evil.

The movie 102 Dalmatians followed up on 101 Dalmatians, but with an entirely new group of actors and characters. Although Cruella seemed to have reformed after years in prison, the sound of Big Ben’s bell was all it took to make her start plotting to steal puppies again.

The acclaimed actress absolutely nailed her performance as Cruella De Vil, and the 2021 remake doesn’t do her portrayal justice. The movie essentially dismantles the entire history of the franchise – including the classic animated film, TV series, and previous live-action movies – prioritizing flashy visuals over a coherent story. While a new take on the character’s backstory could have worked, this version ignores everything that came before and starts completely over, which is disappointing given how original the Cruella story was in the first place.

RogerEbert.com described the film as tiring, chaotic, and ultimately lacking energy. While Emma Stone and Emma Thompson deliver strong performances, expertly balancing villainy and charm, the confusing storyline makes it hard to enjoy. It’s visually appealing and trendy, but the movie feels pointless – it’s unclear why Disney decided to remake this story or what they hoped to accomplish with it.

This decision appears to be driven by financial concerns rather than artistic vision. Unfortunately, it’s become common practice for the Disney studio to rework its classic animated films.

Read More

2025-12-01 04:46