She only kidnapped Anita's 15 puppies. The rest of the 99 were all bought and paid for from Pet Shops. Remember she tried the legitimate way with a check, but Roger refused to accept any money for them, hence why she resorted to the kidnapping approach for the last 15 she needed. I'll wager she had this twisted idea and bought up all the puppies in London, but couldn't find anymore, until she found out her old school buddy had a Dalmatian soon to have puppies and that's why she was so thrilled at the number who were born. She needed all 99 to make the coat after all, so a litter of 15 was a stroke of luck, and somewhat rare I'd imagine to come across.

 

Is this going to be like Maleficent where they rewrite Cruella so she's not actually evil? Cause that's basically what Maleficent was, it was just Sleeping Beauty with a twist that the evil villain was never actually evil. They made her sympathetic by giving her a tragic back story instead of she just wasn't invited to a party one time. Plus she ends up regretting the curse and raising Aurora as her own daughter... so um... yeah... She's suppose to be an evil villain who hates Aurora for no real reason.

So I guess in this movie Cruella will be an animal lover who doesn't actually want to murder puppies but has some secret tragic back story that explains why she does that?

Also I think Emma Stone is far too young and attractive to play that role. Cruella is a mean old lady. Hair doesn't turn gray all at once and I have seen some older women who's hair actually does that. But when someone as young as Emma Stone has that hair it just looks like it was purposely dyed and styled that way. They need someone older to play that part.

Though I looked it up... she's 32... and still looks like a teenager. Still I'm picturing someone at least 40-50 years old with visible wrinkles not a young attractive woman.

 

Idk, whether or not she kidnapped any of them, or bought them all, doesn't really change the fact that she has them to murder them. She's crossed the line between good, and hyperspace-jumped into evil, either way.

 

I never said it did, I was just pointing out that only 15 puppies were kidnapped. Despite being an insane evil bitch with spotty delusions, she still was willing to go through the process of legally purchasing 99 puppies to kill, skin and use for her coat.

 

Ah, okay, I was misunderstanding the point of your post, then. Yea, she did, so she's lawful evil. Which makes me wonder just how Disney plans to make this lady the protagonist.

 

You kinda answered your own question. It's a prequel about when Cruella was Emma Stone's age.

 

That's bad math. If she kidnapped 15 and legally purchased 99 other puppies... which I don't recall anyone saying she's ever legally obtained any of the puppies, just that only the 15 were known to have been kidnapped from her former employee and we just don't know where the other puppies came from but they were likely also kidnapped...

Anyway 99 + 15 = 113 The movie is called 101 Dalmatians which also includes the two adults. That means there were 99 puppies in TOTAL not 99 completely separate set of puppies from the 15 kidnapped puppies. You should be subtracting the 15 from 99 not adding them together.

Not really... you kind of missed my point about her hair. Some people's hair actually naturally does that with old age. It's rare but it can happen. Making Cruella younger she wouldn't have that hair, it would just be all black or at least the gray part wouldn't be all that noticeable yet. Maybe she would start to see gray hair at this age but it wouldn't be totally white on one side for at least another 10-20 years. At least if we're going by her real age... again she still oddly looks like a teenager.

What is with people in Hollywood not aging like normal humans?

Anyway... she just looks like her hair was intentionally styled that way while an older woman would look like her hair was naturally colored that way... and who intentionally dyes their hair like that unless they're specifically trying to look like that character which wouldn't make sense for the actual character to do.

 

I didn't miss it, it just doesn't seem like a big deal. It's a prequel about Cruella being Emma's age. Maybe we'll see her character make that hair choice in the movie. Maybe we won't and it'll just be what it is. Who cares?

 

Don't be obtuse.

Facts FROM THE ANIMATED MOVIE:

1. There are 15 Puppies stolen
2. There are 99 Puppies total.
3. Lucky or Patches asks point blank if the other puppies were stolen too and there is a response line from an unnamed puppy that 'nah, we were all bought and paid for, from the pet shops.'
4. Therefore 84 Puppies were BOUGHT AND PAID FOR!
5. She was willing to buy Anita's puppies, this means she WOULD HAVE bought 99 puppies, not that she did, at no point did I ever say she bought 99 Puppies, I said she had intentions to purchase the Puppies, but Roger flat out said no, so she resorted to stealing the last litter she needed to make her grotesque coat.

I hope these facts have helped to clarify my position. Good day, sir.

 

Trying to argue with SaberPrime is like trying to argue with a wall. Except a wall is less immovable and probably smarter.

 

The big deal is her hair not making any sense for someone Emma Stone's age. You say you didn't miss the point yet you continue to miss the point about her age.

That black on one side, white on the other, is an actual thing hair can do in old age. I've seen women in real life who naturally have that hair. That's what Cruella's hair style was originally based on in the first place. That means the only way that hair makes sense is if the character is older not Emma Stone's age.

If they're going to make a YOUNGER version of Cruella who wouldn't have that hair yet, then she shouldn't have that hair.

And to drive the point further about dying it... if Cruella was going to dye her hair she would want to dye it so the white part doesn't show because that's a sign of aging and Cruella is the sort of person who cares about her appearance. So dying her hair to make herself look OLDER is something she would never do.

No matter how you look at it... Emma Stone just isn't right for the part cause she doesn't look like Cruella, she looks like a teenager cosplaying as Cruella. I'm never going to see her as the character, she's just going to be Emma Stone with her hair dyed to look like a part she's really not right for.

That's what I said... That was the whole point of my post. In your original post you said "she still was willing to go through the process of legally purchasing 99 puppies" that means 99 ADDITIONAL puppies rather than 99 total puppies.

I don't remember that part but that begs two questions...

1. What pet shops are willing to sell 84 puppies to one person... or three people assuming her two goons went in for some of the puppies but that's still like 38 puppies per person. Maybe things were different in London at the time this movie takes place but I'm pretty sure most pet shops won't let anyone adopt that many puppies at once... then again this is also a movie where one family adopts 101 dogs by the end of the movie... but they didn't get them from a pet shop.

2. Maybe I should of made this number 1... but if she was willing to legally obtain her own puppies anyway why even both kidnapping the 15 from her former employee? I mean she never would of been caught if she hadn't sent her goons to kidnap those specific puppies and could of gotten away with it if all the puppies were obtained legally. That just seems like a rather inconsistent judgement for the character to make. I always assumed they were all kidnapped from different locations cause anyone evil enough to kidnap 15 puppies wouldn't think to just go buy their own puppies and I'm sorry I still want to know what pet shop agreed to sell her 84 puppies.

Again, that's my point. Again in your original post you said "she still was willing to go through the process of legally purchasing 99 puppies" If you had said 84 in the first place I wouldn't of needed to respond to correct your math where you ADDED 99 puppies to the stolen 15 rather than subtracting the 15 from the 99 total.

Anita and Roger said no though... because they knew the puppies would be made into a fur coat and didn't like that... which again begs the question of why the pet shops were willing to sell her the puppies. Did they not know about the whole coat thing?

Anyway... you didn't say she WOULD HAVE bought 99 puppies you said she DID BUY 99 puppies. Your exact words were.

"I was just pointing out that only 15 puppies were kidnapped. Despite being an insane evil bitch with spotty delusions, she still was willing to go through the process of legally purchasing 99 puppies to kill, skin and use for her coat."

You pointed out that only 15 puppies were kidnapped and then went on to claim an additional 99 were legally purchased. There was no mention of her failed attempt to buy Roger and Anita's puppies you were just pointing out a distinction between the 15 that were kidnapped from them and the legally purchased puppies of which there were only 84 not 99.

 

It's also a choice someone could make. Google "young people hair dyed white" and you'll find a thousand examples of people who care about their appearance doing it. So you're demonstrably wrong. Why do you dig your heels in on things like this?

You're also wrong about the math (AGAIN). She bought 84 puppies legally. She made an offer to buy the other 15, but was refused. So she was willing to buy 99 puppies, but she could only find 84 for sale and had to resort to kidnapping the other 15.

 

You know for someone who has watched the movie you really seem to miss the point.

1. You don't buy 84 puppies all from one store. You buy them from multiple stores. Especially as litters of puppies are only so many per breeding stock. Therefore Cruella DeVil bought 84 puppies legally through multiple different pet shops. There were no police or other forces watching her and buying that many puppies isn't illegal, so what do they care how many she buys at various pet shops.
2. Roger and Anita never knew she intended to make the puppies into a coat, Roger just didn't like her attitude when she showed up. They knew nothing of her true motives. All they knew is she wanted their puppies and Roger refused because he didn't like her attitude.
3. Anita wasn't her former employee in the original, they were old college roomates or something in the cartoon. You are getting the Glen Close live action film mixed up with the animated classic, which I am referring to.
4. 99 Puppies total, not 99 additional puppies, you really don't have very good reading comprehension.
5. I used a hypothetical argument in my original post. Hypothetically her plan was to purchase 99 puppies in total. Anita and Roger failed to provide it. I don't know how you could think I was speaking of anything else.

Hopefully that clears everything up, but if not, it is what it is.

 

I already covered this... The only reason people dye their hair that way is to look like the character... the character herself would have no reason to do this.

That's like saying that a younger version of the Joker who isn't the Joker yet would dye his hair green to look like a future version of himself in his own universe. It makes no sense.

Just because people dye their hair to look like a character in real life doesn't mean it makes sense in universe for the actual character to dye their hair that way.

Just because you either don't understand what the hell I'm talking about or more likely know what I'm talking about and just want to argue for the sake of arguing doesn't make it wrong. Why don't you ever put any effort into understanding what the hell you're actually arguing against?

The original post I was responding to said 99 not 84 which is why the math was wrong. End of story.

To be fair I haven't seen that movie in YEARS. And I'm not arguing the details of plot points that I don't remember. I'm just responding to what you yourself have said in your own posts. I barely even remember the character's names at this point. Pongo and BLANK were the two adult dogs... you see what I mean.

Actually... while I don't know what the laws were in London during that time period, buying that many puppies actually IS illegal in the U.S. today because no one can possibly care for that many animals. Pet stores actually have a limit on how many animals they'll sell to a single customer at any one time. Trying to buy an entire litter would most certainly land you on some sort of watch list. Essentially any pet store would likely turn her down for the same reason Roger and Anita did unless she was more sneaky about what she wanted them for.

What do you mean they didn't know she wanted to make them into a coat? She was pretty up front about the fact that she thought their spots would look good on a coat and later when the puppies went missing despite Cruella herself not actually taking the puppies, she hired those two goons to do it for her, they immediately knew it was Cruella who hired them and what she was planning to do with the puppies due to their earlier interactions with her. They aren't stupid.

The only thing they didn't know is the exact location of the puppies since they were being held by those two goons and they had no real evidence to prove to the police that she was involved.

Considering Cruella seems much older than Anita the idea of them going to college at the same time seems unlikely... And I do recall her in both versions referring to Cruella as her boss or employer in both versions... and then being fired when she agreed with her husband and refused to sell the puppies.

Plus Anita never came across like she thought of Cruella as a friend, so there's no reason why she would invite that woman to her house and act so nice towards her other than to protect her job. Roger was also trying to hide the fact that he can't stand her, even BEFORE she enters the house he wrote that song about her just cause he doesn't like her. Her attitude was no surprise to either of them. Though Roger wasn't as good about playing nice and mostly tried to just stay out of their way until she started talking about the puppies.

Your exact words... AGAIN.

"I was just pointing out that only 15 puppies were kidnapped.[/quote]

Here you've already mentioned the 15 puppies.

"Despite being an insane evil bitch with spotty delusions, she still was willing to go through the process of legally purchasing 99 puppies to kill, skin and use for her coat."

This is a separate statement which makes it additional to the original 15 you already mentioned.

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Your sentence structure however... this reads as 15 stolen + 99 purchased = 114 total You should have said... You made no effort to specify that 99 was the total, no effort to specify that only 84 were successfully purchases. Either of which would of cleared this up. You only made those corrections after I corrected you and then pretended there was no need for the correction in the first place.

I just told you... you listed the 15 stolen puppies as an additional separate number from the legally purchased puppies. This indicates that 99 would not be the total. There was no indication that you were including the failed attempted to purchase the stolen puppies in the second part of that statement.

If you had not mentioned the 15 stolen puppies prior then I would of assumed 99 was the total but by mentioning them as a separate additional bunch there's no reason for me to just assume they're also for some reason included in a completely different sentence about a seemingly different set of puppies.

 

So because I didn't spell it out in my first post you thought I was mistaken, in error?

I guess in future all of my posts will have to spell out exactly what I mean because some people fail to put two and two together to make four.

Also, Cruella is NOT much older than Anita, in fact her entry on the Disney Wiki specifically calls out that she and Anita were both school friends and Roger has dialogue referring to her as such. The reason her hair looks the way it does has nothing to do with her age and everything to do with her personality. But you seem to insist on arguing against that fact in every post you make, branding around your opinions on age and plot points and everything under the sun to make it seem as if you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I have seen 101 Dalmatians over 30 times in my long life, I own it, I re-watch it when I feel like it. I know plot points, I know the story and I know the characters. I certainly know it better enough to be confident in stating that:

1. Cruella is Anita's old School Friend.
2. Anita and Roger had no inkling why she wanted the puppies, they just knew that she was interested and at the time their financial situation made it seem like a good idea to sell them since they couldn't care for 15 puppies. AT THE TIME of Their Birth.
3. 84 Puppies were all bought and paid for, the DOGS SAID SO THEMSELVES. Who the fuck cares about the rules in our world, this is an animated universe set in 1930's/40's London and laws about dog ownership weren't as strict back then. Also, pet stores probably didn't say, oh hey, you know I just sold this many Dalmatians to a wild crazy eyed woman, what a great sale. Not all litters of puppies have to be 15 you know, and if she used proxies like Horace and Jasper to buy them then she wouldn't have been on the radar of the cops. The plain simple fact is WE DON'T KNOW HOW SHE BOUGHT THEM because the film doesn't tell us HOW, just that SHE DID IN FACT BUY THEM!
4. Roger never liked her and he told her they weren't selling the puppies after repeated abuses.
5. The puppies were stolen one night, the humans thought Cruella was behind it but had no proof and certainly had no proof that she was going to kill all these puppies to make a ruddy fur coat out of them.

If you'd care to argue the facts of the plot of the movie any further, enjoy it, I think I'll go re-watch it instead and enjoy the thing rather than argue about the facts with somebody who can't be bothered to even remember basic lines of dialogue from a movie. Oh wait, I guess you can't if you haven't watched it 30+ times over the course of a lifespan. Or didn't see it when you were young enough to have it become impressionable on your mind.

 

Can we, maybe, get back to the topic of the Cruella De Vil movie? (Maybe argue about this over PM?)

BoT: Speaking of Anita, who should play her if she's even in the movie?


jD001

 

Please don't encourage people to argue over PMs. But I do apologize, we are discussing the character who is the title role of the movie so technically it is still relevant. On a technicality mind you.

Honestly I'm not sure who would be good to play Anita if she appears in this. Maybe someone from the same age range as Emma. How many actresses can carry such a role? I hesitate to say it, but perhaps the Hunger Games actress. Jennifer Laurence was it?

 

Sorry about the PM thing.

Jennifer Laurence could be a good choice for Anita. I could also see Emily Blunt. (Mary Poppins Returns)


jD001

 

You're citing a wiki page as your evidence, literally anyone can edit that and say whatever they want on there. Doesn't make it true.

It's not just her hair that makes her look older. Her face is wrinkled despite the face masks and make up she uses to try to hide them. Even her voice sounds like an older woman. Granted she's also a smoker while Anita is clearly not so that could account for why she appears older despite being closer to the same age as Anita however even if we go with that explanation Emma Stone would STILL look too young to play the part. I'm not talking about actual age, I'm talking about PERCEIVED age, how old she LOOKS. That should of been clear when I mentioned the fact that Emma Stone looks like a teenager despite actually being 32. She's no where near being a teenager (13-19) but she still looks like she could pass as 18.

BTW I'm only a year older than she is and I look like I could pass for 50. I've also got a cousin who is the same age as my dad but looks at least 10-20 years OLDER. So yeah actual age isn't really that important which means even if you're right it takes nothing away from what I said about how old she LOOKS! It's got nothing to do with hold she actually is.

You know what, I'm just going to find that scene on YouTube and settle this right now.

Found it... actually two scenes...

So you were right about the school mate thing but I was correct when I said Roger already didn't like her before she even entered the house. And she openly talks about making them into coats during this scene. In fact she talks about it while they're discussing the fur coat she's currently wearing in this scene. It's no secret what she wants the puppies for.

And this is the second scene where she actually tries to buy the puppies. Note that she makes a huge deal about them not having spots yet and then calms down when they explain they'll get their spots when they're older. They know about her obsession with fur coats, they know she's only interested in the puppies for the spot pattern in their fur, how much more blatantly obvious can she possibly be? There's no way they didn't know what she wanted the puppies for when she was upfront about it from the very beginning.

I'm not arguing that they weren't or that they didn't say that. I'm just pointing out a flaw in the plot that wouldn't work in today's society with our current laws.

Literally everyone who's not in prison and doesn't wish to be in prison.

I had already made that assumption but it's still shocking based on current world views that such a thing would ever be allowed in the past.

I never said they did. I just said pet stores today would never sell that many (84) puppies to any one person. I realize she went to multiple pet shops but she would likely only be able to get 3 puppies per shop. One per person. They'd be unlikely to sell an entire litter.

BTW... you seem to think that each pet shop would only have 1 litter of puppies each. Depending on the size of the store and their staff they could have multiple litters from different parents at any given time. That said it's entirely possible that all 84 puppies could of come from as little as 2 stores.

I KNOW THAT'S WHY I'M SPECULATING! Do you not understand how a this works? If we knew that I wouldn't need to speculate and ask questions about it. Gawd and you think my reading comprehension is bad. It's like you haven't even read a single word I've said as you point out super obvious things that I clearly already know. Either insert your own head canon or ignore it and move on.

I literally just said that in my last post. Not in those exact words but I did say that despite Cruella not being there herself as she had those two goons kidnap the puppies, they still knew she was behind the kidnapping. They knew exactly why she wanted them for. They didn't have evidence to prove any of to the police but they weren't idiots. You're just saying the same thing I said in a different way.

I'm not arguing the facts of the plot of the movie. You're trying to have a non existent argument with me over facts I never claimed in the first place.

The only things I ever really actually claimed was that 84 puppies were purchased not 99 and that Emma Stone looks too young to play Cruella.

I also did assume that Cruella was Anita's boss rather than a school mate which I actually already admitted earlier in this post you were correct.

Everything else was speculation and personal opinion not any claims of facts but YOU insist on turning everything into a damn argument. You have to be right about everything regardless of if it's actually a fact claim or not. You can't just let someone have a different opinion than you, you have to prove your own superiority.

We all make mistakes some times. You made a math error and rather than owning up to it you have to start a non existent argument that is designed to draw focus away from that mistake. I don't give a shit about your superiority complex. I don't give a shit about being right all the time, that's why I admitted that I made a mistake earlier in this post. Now can you do the same or are you going respond with another post where you randomly shout facts I'm not even arguing at me?

Dude, four things...

First, I'm pretty sure everyone has seen it 30+ times over the course of a lifespan. That's nothing to brag about.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure everyone has seen it when they were young but that's actually the problem. Memories are really unreliable and when you haven't seen a movie in YEARS since you were a kid it doesn't matter how many times you've watched it you're not going to remember everything perfectly as an adult.

Thirdly, when a normal person with a normal memory can't even be expected to perfectly remember a movie they haven't seen in over 20 years how do you expect a member of system with dissociative amnesia to perfectly remember a movie we haven't seen in over 20 years? Do you even realize you're bragging about having a better memory than someone with dissociative amnesia? I mean it says System Pride right under my name.

Finally, regardless of all of this stuff... why do you think that any of this is something to brag about anyway? It's just a cartoon, none of it matters. You act like watching this movie a bunch of times is the greatest accomplishment of man kind or something. Get over yourself.

 

She compliments the dogs in the picture on their spots, she then mentions how much she adores furs. Anyone would not immediately jump to the conclusion this means she wants to SKIN A FUCKING DOG to make a fur coat. Only deranged sickos think like that. Anita and Roger DID NOT KNOW WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO. Because if they did, then Pongo and Perdita would have known exactly what was going to happen before they rescued their puppies. Later in the film the adult dalmatians have to be told that she was going to make dog skin coats out of the pups. If Anita and Roger had known exactly what she was plotting I'm sure they would have said something where Pongo and Perdita would have overheard them and known exactly what was going on.

We the audience know, but the characters in the film do not.

As for what I insist on doing, I insist on bringing up facts concerning the plot. That's it. And I DID NOT MAKE A FUCKING MATH MISTAKE! I clearly stated that she only kidnapped 15 puppies and was intending to purchase 99 legally. I did not make any stupid fucking math mistakes, my original post was to state a fact and IMPLY that her plan was to buy 99 puppies in total. There is an implication behind what I said, you chose not to see it and took it seriously. Or decided to call me out on something that wasn't an issue ever to begin with.

I am also not trying to prove my superiority. I am trying to prove the pertinent facts about the plot of a movie that I enjoy. Enough that I have watched it, at least as recently as 5 or so years ago. I have long held the tradition of re-watching all of my Disney movies when I get an inkling to do so. So my memories are not that old, when I said I saw it over 30 times that was not just to brag, it was merely a statement of fact.

And why are you bringing up amnesia? I don't even known what you're talking about. I don't know a whole lot about mental illnesses. I just know certain basics about things in my family history and the like and there's nothing there about dissociative amnesia or series pride or whatever.

My memories are pretty damn great thank you very much. Granted others memories may be shoddy, but I haven't had problems with memory yet and hope to hell I don't start anytime soon.

As far as the looking older than you are actually age wise, yes, this is true. But the point is, that is not the case here. The character's appearance is a stylistic choice. There's also the possibility of her hair just naturally doing that, some people do have pigmentation issues with their hair, it can happen and has nothing to do with age. Her angular cheekbones and the like also have nothing to do with her age, it is merely to show that she is the villain, and may be suffering a bit due to her constant smoking habit.

As far as the laws and things preventing that, yes, they exist NOW. Not back when the film and story were first conceived and the like. You have to realize that these types of stories reflect the time of which they were created. Today you can't buy 84 puppies, back when this story was made laws were not the same and it was pretty obvious people could do that sort of thing if they were rich enough. Hell they could probably shoot them if they wanted to. Horrible things happen, we learn from them and put rules in place to prevent that, doesn't change the fact that they happened.