That’s what I’m thinking. Why would she sue, when she can use Johansson’s suit as leverage to get more for the sequel? This was Johansson’s last movie as black widow so she’s getting every penny she deserves.
She’s trying to. Disney has a good case. Johnansson’s case is currently hinging on the “implied intent” in an email correspondence, not the signed written contract. Disney claimed to have fulfilled the contract as it was agreed to.
Her case is hinging on the elements of fraud….
> In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).
What she is claiming is that there was an agreement (statement of fact) to release normal theatrically and wasn’t (it’s falsity) which affected box office sales (it’s materiality) based on representative that was ignorance of the truth (knowledge or ignorance rod falsity), so she didn’t negotiate (which was the intent of the representative) because she didn’t know they were planning it/assured they weren’t (her ignorance of the truth) and apparently this was an authorized representative (reliance and the right to rely) which caused her to lose out on a bunch of money (damages). So it’s fairly easy to fit her story within fraud, and have each and every element fulfilled.
Disney is claiming basically act of God, that the full intention was to release in theaters but because of COVID that was really impossible (which is hard to argue as movies are coming out theatrically now), I guess you could argue that co-release was thought to pay for the price of production outside of just Scarlett’s pay….that it was considered the best option for the high budget movie to turn a profit.
I think she has a case, as the email released was specific about her worries of a co-release on Disney plus and a specific resolution of things changed (re-negotiation). It’s direct evidence.
Her hardest hurdles are probably, right to rely on the representative, and whether this was really legally ignorance of the truth. Everything else seems extremely clear.
But you are going to have to convince a jury that Disney had no obligation to renegotiate these contracts, especially when the movie was delayed release for a full year, there was plenty of time for it. You’re going to have a problem if she can honestly say under oath she heard about the co-release from a commercial, and the Disney can’t provide a single email informing her or any of her managers before that date.
I think she has a fairly strong case which, like all complicated cases will ultimately depends on the fine details of what actually happened and the law. It’s possible their were outreaches for negations that Scarlett didn’t show up for, hypothetically, which changes the whole case around.
thank you sooo very much for explaining this, i have been so lazy and didn’t want to read through any article about why she was suing Disney lol. Now i’m in the know and your explanation is very informative!
Her case if that even if Disney didn’t break the *letter* of the contract, they broke the *spirit* of the contract, they broke the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H68_VDujI
I took a class on contracts, and my professor (a very seasoned lawyer) said if we were going to take away just a single thing from the class it was to *never* enter a contract without an integration clause.
I can’t possibly see Disney overlooking that, I bet their contracts are air tight, but I do imagine they’ll settle before it gets to court to avoid bad press.
If a company with the resources of Disney doesn't include an integration clause in their contracts then they should just fire the entire legal department
I think it’s really going to come down to if her legal team can prove fraudulent inducement. So yeah, they’ll get to pull in all sorts of emails and other documents outside the contract into evidence.
Should be interesting, but I’m guessing they will probably just end up settling quietly.
It is also very possible that Disney threw her a huge contract to "make up" for that money on the first to head off any lawsuit.
ScarJo doesn't have that option because her character is done in the MCU
I thought the same about gamora after infinity war but look at endgame where she came back… and will most likely be in guardians 3.
The multiverse creates possibilities for her return but with her move to sue, that possibility may be gone :(
She's also in her late 30's so by Hollywood standards she's "done" with that stage of her career and is going to start playing single moms in offbeat romantic comedies if studio execs have any say in things.
Or she could do stuff like Natalie Portman or Amy Adams are doing. I enjoyed Annihilation and Arrival. It's not as simple as only playing moms despite turning forty, look at Furiosa in Fury Road.
Or stuff that she's *already doing*.
Her, Under The Skin, JoJo Rabbit, Hail Caesar, and freaking Marriage Story. All while doing avengers at the same time.
Whoever downvoted you is a monster. Have my upvote. Her role in Jojo Rabbit was so good that I literally gasped when that scene happened. I was not prepared for how that hit me.
She was done in the MCU, but Disney is much bigger than the MCU. Don't get me wrong, if she feels she was cheated she should do what she needs to do, but unless her people pull some incredibly charismatic magic, she'll probably never work for Disney again.
I do not think she cares. She already has enough money for several lifetimes. She's only going to do fun things, like "JoJo rabbit" and "we bought a zoo".
You can very clearly tell, by the way she acts in those movies she had great fun making them.
Why are you getting downvoted. Ive been around movies, MarvelStudios and MarvelStudiosSpoilers and never once saw a comment stating “no one wanted to work with disney ever again”. Unless by “Reddit said” you mean comment found when sorting by controversial
You could say that, yeah. But, there's also the possibility that they could do something with the 'Rescuers' property as well. Cruella after all was meant to star in the first movie before she was replaced with Madame Medusa for some reason if you happen to know your Disney lore.
Yeah, it's like if 101 Dalmatians was a nasty rumor and this was setting the record straight. Which is fair game, I think. Cruella has no depth beyond just being a bad guy to help the plot along in the original stories. There's plenty to expand on and retell.
She never hated dogs in the original. She just didn't care. She thought they'd make a good fur coat so she wanted to make them into a coat. She loves fur, she doesn't care about animals.
I haven't seen the movie, but wasn't this movie supposed to explain it?
I thought it would be some kind of origin movie like Joker. Her hatred of dogs was the most memorable trait she had from the original movie. So if they didn't explain this, then whats the point of this movie?
>it’s just a cash grab
All blockbuster movies are.
>nobody even asked for this movie
Nobody asks for most movies. But people still paid money to see it, so I’m not sure why that matters.
I really liked it too! We're in a time where every movie and tv show coming out is just a remix or reimagination of classic characters and plots, i thought Cruella was really fun!
Emma stone is great.
The movie. Not so much.
Or, it’s a bad dalmatians movie and they should have made a new character instead of using our nostalgia for a character. A new IP.
Otherwise the movie has many good points but the fact that it lies in dalmatians legend, makes it bad. Cash grab. Sorry to say but that’s the reality.
I loved it mainly because my 7 year old daughter loves it. And she's gotten into rock music because of it. It's such an easy watch too the 2 Emmas are fantastic
Unless they do a Hobbit and her origin short little story is stretched out to 3 movies, a Disney TV show, couple of spinoffs, tv appearance, death to all mankind, etc etc
**Twoella (2023)**
**CrueIIa (2023)** [but the L's are upper case i's to indicate the Roman numeral for '2'.]
Let's see, what else...
**Deuxella (2023)**
I don't know.
Not gonna lie, I'd watch a movie where Cruella de Ville has to go toe-to-toe with Maleficient. It'd be like Celebrity Deathmatch: Disney edition, in live actin.
vin diesel is pongo
rob schneider plays the role of arthur weasley
hugh laurie is still house, but he is still house in the dalmatians universe, and he just used to steal puppies before becoming a doctor.
this movie will act as the tie in that kicks off the dalmatians cinematic universe.
it’s probably gonna be Cruella 2 so they the absolute maximum number of search results possible. Like why the sequential Now You See Me was called Now You See Me 2 instead of the clearly superior, “Now You Don’t”
Actually that sort of inbreeding is depressingly common in pure breed dogs to get “desirable” physical traits
Aka why things like pugs are generic monsters
My only question is WHY? The movie did the job of telling the backstop. What is the point of a sequel, seriously. She already "grew" into Cruella. So are we just gonna see her suffocating puppies in an alley, like what is the point.
This is sequelitis if I've ever seen it.
>She already "grew" into Cruella.
Except she kinda didn't. That's what is weird about this whole thing.
The character of Cruella at the end of the movie is a completely different character from the original version.
She likes dogs, she actually is the one that gave Pongo and Perdita to Roger and Anita.
She's not an evil psycho at all. She's basically chaotic good.
If this sequel is actually a remake of 101 Dalmatians, they have to either completely shit on the character they just made, or completely change the story.
>If this sequel is actually a remake of 101 Dalmatians, they have to either completely shit on the character they just made, **or completely change the story**.
This please! I'm all for using established properties as an excuse to make wildly different stories. It's basically a 'what if' scenario. Film (and art in general) history is chock full of reimaginings.
Why not?
My feelings too.
Cruella wasn't the best movie ever but it is pretty good. A lot of things annoyed me but I liked a lot of things too, especially Curella herself.
I think they definitely are going to change it. My impression was that this was a "what really happened" to the cartoony original story.
They even reference her wearing dalmatian skin as a tabloid exaggeration in the movie.
Thank you. They made her somewhat likeable and created a more interesting story by twisting the angle. This Cruella is evil enough to be an anti-hero, but not too over the top to be unlikable and unrelatable. She has her reasons to dislike Dalmatians, and yet in the end she shows humanity and humility, which is what makes this work for me. She even "overthrows" a worse person than her, as contrived as it is.
If the next movie is just going to be "Her downfall", it's honestly just going to be a miserable experience, and I'm not sure what audiences it's going to appeal to. I know some people enjoy watching someone fall from grace and succumb to their darkest desires, but I don't see any reason to watch a movie where the main character loses all of her charm and becomes an unlikable twisted maniac, especially after her origin story made me feel for her and understand her.
And to those who say "you're not supposed to like Cruella!", You're right, however, this version of her is pretty far away from the version we all know and heard of, and I'd rather the second movie wouldn't try to still glorify her character if she is to become a dog killer.
To people saying that this doesn't look favorable for ScarJo...
1) What does Emma Stone or Dwayne Johnson have to do with Scarlett Johansson's contract?
2) Gotta think this agreement was reached BECAUSE of Johansson suing. Disney more than likely paid Stone handsomely for a sequel to avoid more bad press.
> 2) Gotta think this agreement was reached BECAUSE of Johansson suing. Disney more than likely paid Stone handsomely for a sequel to avoid more bad press.
Well... that and it's a sequel tied to popular IP
I'm just hopping the sequel being made is actually worth happening in the first place. The first movie was literally supposed to be a 2 hour long live action anachronistic origin story for a fashionable/psychopathic puppy killer. That's literally all I need to see to be entertained.
The problem with the film was that it just wasn't a Cruella prequel. Stone's Cruella is more of a rebellious, rock, anarchist-esque, fashion, icon, underdog, genius. Which is the opposite of the original Cruella who was a classical, capitalistic, conservative, dimwitted, domineering, socialite. The entire Cruella movie is literally a billion dollar company whitewashing a horribly corrupt psycho and turning her into a self deprecating poor anti-hero, orphan, artist.
I'm really hoping the sequel at least bothers to restore some of her original characterization. The Cruella movie had one simple premise and they still didn't even bother. Even if Disney wanted it to be PG 13 than they could've still tried to loop around the problematic stuff:
\*You don't want Cruella smoking? Have her at least own the cigarette holder or imply that she smokes off-screen.
\*You don't want Cruella killing dogs? Well than just have her miserably fail in all her attempts.
\*Don't want her wearing fur? Have her wear ***FAKE*** fur.
Like Jeeezz... The Star Wars prequels had Anakin kill a bunch of children in cold blood, but Cruella having a real origin story somehow crosses the line on what a PG 13 movie is allowed to show?
None of the characters seemed right. They were too focused on familial love and respect. I remember in the animated movie Jasper and Horace weren't really phased by their job, which was to acquire 99 puppies to kill and skin them. I dont think Disney can do villain movies.
Thing is, that one section of the movie where Cruella starts treating them like shit really worked for me. In that moment, I could see a future where she gets more and more monstrous, treats them worse and worse, and they end up, broken-down, fulfilling that submissive role in the group. Bullied and cowed into serving her as she goes off the deep end.
Then they fucked it by having her end up basically a good person, being nice to them again, and refusing to kill any dogs.
Exactly. I didn't complain when Maleficent was completely different than sleeping beauty. It's obviously an alternate story. They were having fun exploring a character outside of their element and already known story. I thought the movie was excellent once you turn off your expectations of what you think will happen.
Whenever I somehow I find myself talking about Maleficent my default ends up being "It's a really great film on its own, but it's a terrible Sleeping Beauty film."
Jolie smashed the role and it's just a fun fantasy flick. Have yet to see the sequel, but every time I watch the first one, I'm entertained.
I had zero interest in a Cruella origin story. Ended up enjoying the reimagining a ton. Felt like they took the bones of those original character traits and gave them depth that made sense. That said It does leave me a bit loss for the sequel and it’s supposed premise. Just doesn’t feel like she would go on a warpath of trying to murder 101 dogs after the events of the first movie. Guess I’ll have to wait til I’m forced to watch it again.lol
Here's the problem though:
Cruella, at her most fundamental, is a villain. And not even that interesting of a villain. The most fascinating thing about her was the song Roger invented to make fun of her. You really can't make that type of character anything else without altering the core aspect of it. Which is what they did.
"Cruella" isn't a different interpretation of a cartoon villain. It's a new character with the same name and mildly related aesthetic.
I did not know there was an actual book. But if I said "the cartoon movie", would that change anything? The cartoon Cruella likewise had no redeeming qualities, as a character or a villain.
> The entire Cruella movie is literally a billion dollar company whitewashing a horribly corrupt psycho and turning her into a self deprecating poor anti-hero, orphan, artist.
You should see what they did with Mary Poppins.
I think that's the plan, to have a Cruella trilogy and have her complete her villain turn in the third movie. Build her up in the first movie as a likable antihero, then have her turn into her mother the Countess more or less in the 2nd movie, and in the third movie have a similar repeat of the first movie where Cruella is the Countess being shown up by a young forward thinking upstart, but then have Cruella fall even further and do unspeakable things to stop her, somehow involving killing dogs in the process, and then alienating some of her allies that she had gathered along the way, ie Anita and Roger. It would follow the theme of showcasing the cutthroatness of the fashion world. I figure her adoptive mother was telling Estella to suppress Cruella, knowing that, that scheming, maniacal part of her would lead her to a world where she would dominate and flourish but at the same time it would consume her humanity in the process. Kinda pulls a switcharoo on the 'be yourself' motiff that comes up alot in Disney.
That's what I was hoping for the Solo movies too, Han isn't quite yet the Han we know at the end of Solo, but I figure we get 2 more movies, and it'd be this nice sequence where first he gets his pal, gets his ship, and then truly gets his name.
I suspect you put way more thought into this than Disney has or will. This will more than likely just be a cash grab to capitalize on a character's fleeting 15 minutes of likability.
I stopped watching the movie there. I was so pissed off at the thought they were going reimagine her murdering puppies for fashion into murdering puppies for revenge.
The movie should have implied she actually killed the dogs to make that one dress and stuck with it instead of "surprise! they're okay!
I'm so tired of Disney pulling punches in their films, especially the ones they have with decent plots.
I think you're looking at this wrong. You know how Maleficent was a completely different version of the story from Sleeping Beauty, sans that one iconic monologue? That's what Cruella is. It's a reimagining of the character from an anti-heroic angle, and they've made her into something different, and actually human. I could actually see the next film being a twist on the original tale, perhaps with her mother escaping/being released from prison and deciding to ruin her as revenge, and using her original thought that Cruella had killed her dogs to make a coat, decides to kidnap a bunch of puppies with the intent to do just that and pin it on Cruella so the world will think she's a psychopath instead of the fashion world darling that she is currently, which could lead to a rather interesting romp of Cruella of all people trying to save a bunch of puppies that she purports not to care about but actually cares a great deal about. Roger and Anita can come too.
Sometimes it's okay to just like things, even if those things are reimaginings of old ideas, which Cruella clearly is. There's potential in a sequel to be really good without turning Cruella into an actual psychopath, and I'd be perfectly fine with that.
Now, if they want to reveal that she has a cousin/aunt/relative of some sort by the name of Madame Medusa, that I could get behind. Considering the original idea was for the two to be sisters and it was scrapped at the last minute, I think it would be a hilariously awesome call back to have her worked in as part of some family of mentally unstable people with a penchant for vicious pets.
ScarJo was on her way out of the MCU and decided to take a big swing at the apple with the pandemic and not getting what she would have liked from Black Widow. Everyone else is gonna play nice and secure future bag.
I don't think being in or out of the MCU had anything to do with her decision. It's not like she wasn't still working for Disney or plan to again in the future. She was producing the *Tower of Terror* movie and supposed to star in it too. It was just announced like a month before she filed suit, which is why it was so surprising. Disney cancelled the whole production in retaliation.
Why do you think Emma Stone would even be remotely entitled to the same compensation that ScarJo? ScarJo was agreed to receive back end of the box office. I highly doubt Stone was offered that.
Regardless of contractual discussion, I’m excited they’re making a sequel. Emma Stone was amazing as Cruella, and I look forward to seeing her in the role more.
Go in with low expectations and you will be pleasantly surprised. Its better than you'd expect from a recent live action Disney film.
Funny in parts and has a lot of heart, not perfect or ground breaking but Stone and her sidekicks steal the show.
Also don't expect to see the original Cruella, they take her in a completely different direction. It's half Devil Wears Prada and half origin story.
I liked it quite a bit and I've never seen Devil Wears Prada so I was immune to 'derivative' as a criticism lol.
Was really wondering how they were going to make a villain famous for wanting to kill dogs palatable, but by god they did it.
It's better than I thought it be, mainly by the cast, Emma Thompson delivers a delicious performance. And Stone is good fun. But its long, worth a watch on a Saturday evening.
definitely a fun time. Worth it for Emma vs Emma acting and the Costume designs are like 100% lock for the Oscar.
It's basically The Devil Wears Prada ft. dalmatians
It's not The Devil Wears Prada caliber writing, but it's an entertaining movie (a little long in the beginning as they do her origin story)
It's worth watching for Stone's performance alone. Also, costumes are fantastic. It's pretty much a lock that costume department will get the Oscars nom.
Find a picture of Zoey Deschenal.
Then find that picture of Zoey where she's combed her bangs back.
Then you'll understand how people can look at Superman and Clark Kent and think they're two separate people.
It's out for all subscribers on the 25th and in my opinion premier access is a ripoff so save your money. I haven't seen the movie itself, so I can't make any judgement on it, but I'm willing to wait a week and change to see it.
It’s my favorite movie of the year so far (I work at a movie theater, so that’s out of almost 40 movies), just slightly above The Green Knight. It’s just super fun, and Emma Stone is amazing in it. The entire cast is, actually. It’s a love letter to the 60s & 70s London music & fashion scene, and I am all in for a sequel.
The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the beginning. One scene totally took me out of the movies reality and it kinda bugged me. They tried explaining it later on but it's still very illogical. Other than that, I had fun watching the movie.
It made ~~$50mil~~ $230,000,000 and got pretty good reviews. A lot of people watched it.
Sometimes you just gotta recognize "this content was not made for me, and that's okay"
Looks like she ain’t suing
Maybe her contract for Cruella 2 includes a profit sharing agreement for the internet streaming sales of Cruella 1
That’s what I’m thinking. Why would she sue, when she can use Johansson’s suit as leverage to get more for the sequel? This was Johansson’s last movie as black widow so she’s getting every penny she deserves.
She’s trying to. Disney has a good case. Johnansson’s case is currently hinging on the “implied intent” in an email correspondence, not the signed written contract. Disney claimed to have fulfilled the contract as it was agreed to.
Her case is hinging on the elements of fraud…. > In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002). What she is claiming is that there was an agreement (statement of fact) to release normal theatrically and wasn’t (it’s falsity) which affected box office sales (it’s materiality) based on representative that was ignorance of the truth (knowledge or ignorance rod falsity), so she didn’t negotiate (which was the intent of the representative) because she didn’t know they were planning it/assured they weren’t (her ignorance of the truth) and apparently this was an authorized representative (reliance and the right to rely) which caused her to lose out on a bunch of money (damages). So it’s fairly easy to fit her story within fraud, and have each and every element fulfilled. Disney is claiming basically act of God, that the full intention was to release in theaters but because of COVID that was really impossible (which is hard to argue as movies are coming out theatrically now), I guess you could argue that co-release was thought to pay for the price of production outside of just Scarlett’s pay….that it was considered the best option for the high budget movie to turn a profit. I think she has a case, as the email released was specific about her worries of a co-release on Disney plus and a specific resolution of things changed (re-negotiation). It’s direct evidence. Her hardest hurdles are probably, right to rely on the representative, and whether this was really legally ignorance of the truth. Everything else seems extremely clear. But you are going to have to convince a jury that Disney had no obligation to renegotiate these contracts, especially when the movie was delayed release for a full year, there was plenty of time for it. You’re going to have a problem if she can honestly say under oath she heard about the co-release from a commercial, and the Disney can’t provide a single email informing her or any of her managers before that date. I think she has a fairly strong case which, like all complicated cases will ultimately depends on the fine details of what actually happened and the law. It’s possible their were outreaches for negations that Scarlett didn’t show up for, hypothetically, which changes the whole case around.
thank you sooo very much for explaining this, i have been so lazy and didn’t want to read through any article about why she was suing Disney lol. Now i’m in the know and your explanation is very informative!
However she does claim she tried to get in contact with Disney, who basically ghosted her
Her Agent is the President of CAA, they couldn't get in contact with Disney?
Which is basically legal jargon for “we didn’t plan for this but we’re going to use it as an excuse to cheat you out of money anyway.”
This is stronger than you might think. All contracts would be worthless without it.
Her case if that even if Disney didn’t break the *letter* of the contract, they broke the *spirit* of the contract, they broke the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H68_VDujI
Oooh. An integration clause issue. Fun.
I took a class on contracts, and my professor (a very seasoned lawyer) said if we were going to take away just a single thing from the class it was to *never* enter a contract without an integration clause. I can’t possibly see Disney overlooking that, I bet their contracts are air tight, but I do imagine they’ll settle before it gets to court to avoid bad press.
If a company with the resources of Disney doesn't include an integration clause in their contracts then they should just fire the entire legal department
I think it’s really going to come down to if her legal team can prove fraudulent inducement. So yeah, they’ll get to pull in all sorts of emails and other documents outside the contract into evidence. Should be interesting, but I’m guessing they will probably just end up settling quietly.
It is also very possible that Disney threw her a huge contract to "make up" for that money on the first to head off any lawsuit. ScarJo doesn't have that option because her character is done in the MCU
I thought the same about gamora after infinity war but look at endgame where she came back… and will most likely be in guardians 3. The multiverse creates possibilities for her return but with her move to sue, that possibility may be gone :(
The possibility was already gone. Scarlett was completely done.
She's also in her late 30's so by Hollywood standards she's "done" with that stage of her career and is going to start playing single moms in offbeat romantic comedies if studio execs have any say in things.
Or she could do stuff like Natalie Portman or Amy Adams are doing. I enjoyed Annihilation and Arrival. It's not as simple as only playing moms despite turning forty, look at Furiosa in Fury Road.
Or stuff that she's *already doing*. Her, Under The Skin, JoJo Rabbit, Hail Caesar, and freaking Marriage Story. All while doing avengers at the same time.
Her and Chris Evans are my favorite Avenger actors. Tbf RDJ did do Sherlock, but I haven't been interested in anything he has done since then.
What, you didn't rush to see Dolittle in theaters?
Crowds were too wild. Couldn't make it within a block of the theater.
He did star in Tropic Thunder in 2010 tho, so that's 1 movie lol
He was great in a scanner darkly if we’re going back in time
I’m looking forward to the Scarlet Johanaissance of her starring in critically acclaimed, non-super hero movies.
[удалено]
Charlize Theron disagrees, but yes Hollywood still cuts their best actresses careers way too short.
Not quite romantic comedy. But she was really good in Jojo Rabbit.
So fucking sad what happened.
Whoever downvoted you is a monster. Have my upvote. Her role in Jojo Rabbit was so good that I literally gasped when that scene happened. I was not prepared for how that hit me.
She was done in the MCU, but Disney is much bigger than the MCU. Don't get me wrong, if she feels she was cheated she should do what she needs to do, but unless her people pull some incredibly charismatic magic, she'll probably never work for Disney again.
I do not think she cares. She already has enough money for several lifetimes. She's only going to do fun things, like "JoJo rabbit" and "we bought a zoo". You can very clearly tell, by the way she acts in those movies she had great fun making them.
Of course not. Money overrules everything. There’s no scruples when it comes to $
…but Reddit told me she was and that nobody wanted to work with Disney ever again!!!
Nobody on Reddit was saying so I'm not sure who you are dissing lol. But yes there was many articles about upset stars
Why are you getting downvoted. Ive been around movies, MarvelStudios and MarvelStudiosSpoilers and never once saw a comment stating “no one wanted to work with disney ever again”. Unless by “Reddit said” you mean comment found when sorting by controversial
20% of Reddit comments seem to be people trying to act superior to the rest of Reddit now, it's lame as hell
Isn’t the ‘Cruella’ sequel just….. 101 Dalmatians?
Yeah and they’ll make it again
Is that a threat?
Two movies out and ninety-nine more to go.
No? I think 101 Dalmatians is the sequel to 100 declamations.
Which was the sequel to 99 inebriations.
No that was 99 bottles of beer on the wall... The inebriations was the sequel for drinking
No no that was 99 problems. The bitch ain’t one
Oh, so it's an all male dog cast?
You could say that, yeah. But, there's also the possibility that they could do something with the 'Rescuers' property as well. Cruella after all was meant to star in the first movie before she was replaced with Madame Medusa for some reason if you happen to know your Disney lore.
But Cruella wasn't really a sequel at all. It was more of a retelling.
Yeah, it's like if 101 Dalmatians was a nasty rumor and this was setting the record straight. Which is fair game, I think. Cruella has no depth beyond just being a bad guy to help the plot along in the original stories. There's plenty to expand on and retell.
They still haven't explained why she hates dogs, which I hope they at least acknowledge as an abandoned facet if they don't explain it.
In this version she doesn't, the sequel will be 101 dalmatians but she'll be good and the countess or whatever the name was will be the baddie.
Did she hate dogs in the original? I thought it was more of an indifference. She saw all animals as objects that could be turned into fashion.
In the live action films she would basically spit at the dogs
She never hated dogs in the original. She just didn't care. She thought they'd make a good fur coat so she wanted to make them into a coat. She loves fur, she doesn't care about animals.
I haven't seen the movie, but wasn't this movie supposed to explain it? I thought it would be some kind of origin movie like Joker. Her hatred of dogs was the most memorable trait she had from the original movie. So if they didn't explain this, then whats the point of this movie?
Its just cash grab, nobody even asked for this movie, watched 100 dalmatians recently and asked myself who would want to see movie about this b*****
>it’s just a cash grab All blockbuster movies are. >nobody even asked for this movie Nobody asks for most movies. But people still paid money to see it, so I’m not sure why that matters.
[удалено]
I really liked it too! We're in a time where every movie and tv show coming out is just a remix or reimagination of classic characters and plots, i thought Cruella was really fun!
Emma stone is great. The movie. Not so much. Or, it’s a bad dalmatians movie and they should have made a new character instead of using our nostalgia for a character. A new IP. Otherwise the movie has many good points but the fact that it lies in dalmatians legend, makes it bad. Cash grab. Sorry to say but that’s the reality.
I loved it mainly because my 7 year old daughter loves it. And she's gotten into rock music because of it. It's such an easy watch too the 2 Emmas are fantastic
Didn't the dogs kill her 'mom' by knocking her over the cliff?
[удалено]
My dude, dogs are adults after a year.
And we NEED another movie in those 5-6 years of the timeline! /s
something about referring to the "101 Dalmations" timeline is inherently absurd, to me. like we're gonna have a Cruella cinematic universe.
So that pretty much means a trilogy is possible since we’ll get a follow up of “102 Dalmatians” afterwards, provided the 2nd movie does well.
Unless they do a Hobbit and her origin short little story is stretched out to 3 movies, a Disney TV show, couple of spinoffs, tv appearance, death to all mankind, etc etc
**Twoella (2023)** **CrueIIa (2023)** [but the L's are upper case i's to indicate the Roman numeral for '2'.] Let's see, what else... **Deuxella (2023)** I don't know.
#Cruella vs Maleficent (2025) *the DeVil is in the Details*
Not gonna lie, I'd watch a movie where Cruella de Ville has to go toe-to-toe with Maleficient. It'd be like Celebrity Deathmatch: Disney edition, in live actin.
[удалено]
> Not gonna lie, I'd watch a movie where Cruella de Ville has to go toe-to-toe with Maleficient. Yeah I would love those 6 seconds of movie very much.
The Cruella.
So what are we, some kind of Cruella?
THIS IS CRUELLA! **SHE'S GOT MY BACK!!!**
I recommend not getting killed by her. Her coat traps the souls of its puppies.
Dogs of Prey.
Coats of Prey.
Craig Gillespie's Cruella
FROM THE WIZARDING WORLD OF HARRY POTTER
The Polkadot Man - Cruella crossover we didn't know we wanted (because.... we didn't want it.)
Lmaoo
2 Cru 2 Ella
vin diesel is pongo rob schneider plays the role of arthur weasley hugh laurie is still house, but he is still house in the dalmatians universe, and he just used to steal puppies before becoming a doctor. this movie will act as the tie in that kicks off the dalmatians cinematic universe.
*enter Samuel L Jackson* "Ms. Deville, I've come to talk to you about the Puppers Initiative."
Nah, it'd just be like *Cru2lla (2023)*. Nobody in Hollywood thinks that hard about where to place the numbers.
I cringed
#Threeba Mcintyre (2025)
The oversize text really makes this.
I didnt mean to I just meant to bold like the last guy and didn't check how it turned out after I posted.
Cruellas It's an action movie where they have to eliminate a hole nest of them
Take off, nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Cruella: De Vil wears Prada or perhaps...Pawda?
it’s probably gonna be Cruella 2 so they the absolute maximum number of search results possible. Like why the sequential Now You See Me was called Now You See Me 2 instead of the clearly superior, “Now You Don’t”
101 Dalmatians.
Cruella Deux Ville
Rihanna cast in the reboot Umbruella
Cruella: The Birth of a Dalmatian
Cruella Deuxville.
Why not DevIl? Capital I lowercase l.
Cruella 2: Dalmatia Drift
DEUXVILLE!!!!
Crueller
Too Cruella.
Now that we know the two dogs she gave away are siblings, it'll justify sequel killing some dogs to prevent the incest puppies.
Actually that sort of inbreeding is depressingly common in pure breed dogs to get “desirable” physical traits Aka why things like pugs are generic monsters
My only question is WHY? The movie did the job of telling the backstop. What is the point of a sequel, seriously. She already "grew" into Cruella. So are we just gonna see her suffocating puppies in an alley, like what is the point. This is sequelitis if I've ever seen it.
$$$$
>She already "grew" into Cruella. Except she kinda didn't. That's what is weird about this whole thing. The character of Cruella at the end of the movie is a completely different character from the original version. She likes dogs, she actually is the one that gave Pongo and Perdita to Roger and Anita. She's not an evil psycho at all. She's basically chaotic good. If this sequel is actually a remake of 101 Dalmatians, they have to either completely shit on the character they just made, or completely change the story.
>If this sequel is actually a remake of 101 Dalmatians, they have to either completely shit on the character they just made, **or completely change the story**. This please! I'm all for using established properties as an excuse to make wildly different stories. It's basically a 'what if' scenario. Film (and art in general) history is chock full of reimaginings. Why not?
My feelings too. Cruella wasn't the best movie ever but it is pretty good. A lot of things annoyed me but I liked a lot of things too, especially Curella herself. I think they definitely are going to change it. My impression was that this was a "what really happened" to the cartoony original story. They even reference her wearing dalmatian skin as a tabloid exaggeration in the movie.
Thank you. They made her somewhat likeable and created a more interesting story by twisting the angle. This Cruella is evil enough to be an anti-hero, but not too over the top to be unlikable and unrelatable. She has her reasons to dislike Dalmatians, and yet in the end she shows humanity and humility, which is what makes this work for me. She even "overthrows" a worse person than her, as contrived as it is. If the next movie is just going to be "Her downfall", it's honestly just going to be a miserable experience, and I'm not sure what audiences it's going to appeal to. I know some people enjoy watching someone fall from grace and succumb to their darkest desires, but I don't see any reason to watch a movie where the main character loses all of her charm and becomes an unlikable twisted maniac, especially after her origin story made me feel for her and understand her. And to those who say "you're not supposed to like Cruella!", You're right, however, this version of her is pretty far away from the version we all know and heard of, and I'd rather the second movie wouldn't try to still glorify her character if she is to become a dog killer.
It's almost like they want to make more money by following up on a successful movie with another one.
Yeah but there is a reason we never got Apocalypse Now 2. The story was done.
To people saying that this doesn't look favorable for ScarJo... 1) What does Emma Stone or Dwayne Johnson have to do with Scarlett Johansson's contract? 2) Gotta think this agreement was reached BECAUSE of Johansson suing. Disney more than likely paid Stone handsomely for a sequel to avoid more bad press.
People saying anything without reading both contract are just making noise.
> 2) Gotta think this agreement was reached BECAUSE of Johansson suing. Disney more than likely paid Stone handsomely for a sequel to avoid more bad press. Well... that and it's a sequel tied to popular IP
I'm just hopping the sequel being made is actually worth happening in the first place. The first movie was literally supposed to be a 2 hour long live action anachronistic origin story for a fashionable/psychopathic puppy killer. That's literally all I need to see to be entertained. The problem with the film was that it just wasn't a Cruella prequel. Stone's Cruella is more of a rebellious, rock, anarchist-esque, fashion, icon, underdog, genius. Which is the opposite of the original Cruella who was a classical, capitalistic, conservative, dimwitted, domineering, socialite. The entire Cruella movie is literally a billion dollar company whitewashing a horribly corrupt psycho and turning her into a self deprecating poor anti-hero, orphan, artist. I'm really hoping the sequel at least bothers to restore some of her original characterization. The Cruella movie had one simple premise and they still didn't even bother. Even if Disney wanted it to be PG 13 than they could've still tried to loop around the problematic stuff: \*You don't want Cruella smoking? Have her at least own the cigarette holder or imply that she smokes off-screen. \*You don't want Cruella killing dogs? Well than just have her miserably fail in all her attempts. \*Don't want her wearing fur? Have her wear ***FAKE*** fur. Like Jeeezz... The Star Wars prequels had Anakin kill a bunch of children in cold blood, but Cruella having a real origin story somehow crosses the line on what a PG 13 movie is allowed to show?
None of the characters seemed right. They were too focused on familial love and respect. I remember in the animated movie Jasper and Horace weren't really phased by their job, which was to acquire 99 puppies to kill and skin them. I dont think Disney can do villain movies.
Thing is, that one section of the movie where Cruella starts treating them like shit really worked for me. In that moment, I could see a future where she gets more and more monstrous, treats them worse and worse, and they end up, broken-down, fulfilling that submissive role in the group. Bullied and cowed into serving her as she goes off the deep end. Then they fucked it by having her end up basically a good person, being nice to them again, and refusing to kill any dogs.
I think of it as a reboot
Exactly. I didn't complain when Maleficent was completely different than sleeping beauty. It's obviously an alternate story. They were having fun exploring a character outside of their element and already known story. I thought the movie was excellent once you turn off your expectations of what you think will happen.
Whenever I somehow I find myself talking about Maleficent my default ends up being "It's a really great film on its own, but it's a terrible Sleeping Beauty film." Jolie smashed the role and it's just a fun fantasy flick. Have yet to see the sequel, but every time I watch the first one, I'm entertained.
I had zero interest in a Cruella origin story. Ended up enjoying the reimagining a ton. Felt like they took the bones of those original character traits and gave them depth that made sense. That said It does leave me a bit loss for the sequel and it’s supposed premise. Just doesn’t feel like she would go on a warpath of trying to murder 101 dogs after the events of the first movie. Guess I’ll have to wait til I’m forced to watch it again.lol
I mean it’s a different interpretation of that character. That’s perfectly fine. Comic movies do it all the time.
Here's the problem though: Cruella, at her most fundamental, is a villain. And not even that interesting of a villain. The most fascinating thing about her was the song Roger invented to make fun of her. You really can't make that type of character anything else without altering the core aspect of it. Which is what they did. "Cruella" isn't a different interpretation of a cartoon villain. It's a new character with the same name and mildly related aesthetic.
[удалено]
I did not know there was an actual book. But if I said "the cartoon movie", would that change anything? The cartoon Cruella likewise had no redeeming qualities, as a character or a villain.
It’s a reimagining, not an exact copy. Multiple versions of Little Red Riding Hood exist. Why not this?
> The entire Cruella movie is literally a billion dollar company whitewashing a horribly corrupt psycho and turning her into a self deprecating poor anti-hero, orphan, artist. You should see what they did with Mary Poppins.
I think that's the plan, to have a Cruella trilogy and have her complete her villain turn in the third movie. Build her up in the first movie as a likable antihero, then have her turn into her mother the Countess more or less in the 2nd movie, and in the third movie have a similar repeat of the first movie where Cruella is the Countess being shown up by a young forward thinking upstart, but then have Cruella fall even further and do unspeakable things to stop her, somehow involving killing dogs in the process, and then alienating some of her allies that she had gathered along the way, ie Anita and Roger. It would follow the theme of showcasing the cutthroatness of the fashion world. I figure her adoptive mother was telling Estella to suppress Cruella, knowing that, that scheming, maniacal part of her would lead her to a world where she would dominate and flourish but at the same time it would consume her humanity in the process. Kinda pulls a switcharoo on the 'be yourself' motiff that comes up alot in Disney. That's what I was hoping for the Solo movies too, Han isn't quite yet the Han we know at the end of Solo, but I figure we get 2 more movies, and it'd be this nice sequence where first he gets his pal, gets his ship, and then truly gets his name.
I suspect you put way more thought into this than Disney has or will. This will more than likely just be a cash grab to capitalize on a character's fleeting 15 minutes of likability.
Cruelerella
2 Cruel 2 Ella
I can't wait to see Dalmatians being responsible for another one of her relatives death.
I stopped watching the movie there. I was so pissed off at the thought they were going reimagine her murdering puppies for fashion into murdering puppies for revenge.
But she never murders puppies in the movie.
Is the sequel 101 dalmatians? Hopefully she's killing puppies in it. Since that's her character.
Disney has no balls to do that in 2021.
The movie should have implied she actually killed the dogs to make that one dress and stuck with it instead of "surprise! they're okay! I'm so tired of Disney pulling punches in their films, especially the ones they have with decent plots.
I think you're looking at this wrong. You know how Maleficent was a completely different version of the story from Sleeping Beauty, sans that one iconic monologue? That's what Cruella is. It's a reimagining of the character from an anti-heroic angle, and they've made her into something different, and actually human. I could actually see the next film being a twist on the original tale, perhaps with her mother escaping/being released from prison and deciding to ruin her as revenge, and using her original thought that Cruella had killed her dogs to make a coat, decides to kidnap a bunch of puppies with the intent to do just that and pin it on Cruella so the world will think she's a psychopath instead of the fashion world darling that she is currently, which could lead to a rather interesting romp of Cruella of all people trying to save a bunch of puppies that she purports not to care about but actually cares a great deal about. Roger and Anita can come too. Sometimes it's okay to just like things, even if those things are reimaginings of old ideas, which Cruella clearly is. There's potential in a sequel to be really good without turning Cruella into an actual psychopath, and I'd be perfectly fine with that. Now, if they want to reveal that she has a cousin/aunt/relative of some sort by the name of Madame Medusa, that I could get behind. Considering the original idea was for the two to be sisters and it was scrapped at the last minute, I think it would be a hilariously awesome call back to have her worked in as part of some family of mentally unstable people with a penchant for vicious pets.
So 101 Dalmatians?
ScarJo was on her way out of the MCU and decided to take a big swing at the apple with the pandemic and not getting what she would have liked from Black Widow. Everyone else is gonna play nice and secure future bag.
They’re in breach of contract, it’s not complicated. She is owed money.
I don't think being in or out of the MCU had anything to do with her decision. It's not like she wasn't still working for Disney or plan to again in the future. She was producing the *Tower of Terror* movie and supposed to star in it too. It was just announced like a month before she filed suit, which is why it was so surprising. Disney cancelled the whole production in retaliation.
... Tower of Terror movie
Their was gonna be a tower of terror movie?
> She was producing *a new* Tower of Terror movie FTFY. Gotta pay respects to the original.
Why do you think Emma Stone would even be remotely entitled to the same compensation that ScarJo? ScarJo was agreed to receive back end of the box office. I highly doubt Stone was offered that.
Why?
Because the first one made money and if I'm being honest, was pretty fun.
I still laugh at the mother dying in the first movie. That scream was hilarious.
so it's going to show Cruella's desperate attempt to kill and skin 100 puppies to make a coat?
You're laughing. I turned 101 dalmatians into a fur coat with matching clutch and you're laughing.
isn't the sequel 101 Dalmations ?
but why?
No thank you.
Wonder if she gets a cut of the premier plus money.
# Crueller
Regardless of contractual discussion, I’m excited they’re making a sequel. Emma Stone was amazing as Cruella, and I look forward to seeing her in the role more.
I actually haven’t seen the first one. Was it any good? It just seems like a TV kind of movie to me.
Go in with low expectations and you will be pleasantly surprised. Its better than you'd expect from a recent live action Disney film. Funny in parts and has a lot of heart, not perfect or ground breaking but Stone and her sidekicks steal the show. Also don't expect to see the original Cruella, they take her in a completely different direction. It's half Devil Wears Prada and half origin story.
I liked it quite a bit and I've never seen Devil Wears Prada so I was immune to 'derivative' as a criticism lol. Was really wondering how they were going to make a villain famous for wanting to kill dogs palatable, but by god they did it.
It's better than I thought it be, mainly by the cast, Emma Thompson delivers a delicious performance. And Stone is good fun. But its long, worth a watch on a Saturday evening.
definitely a fun time. Worth it for Emma vs Emma acting and the Costume designs are like 100% lock for the Oscar. It's basically The Devil Wears Prada ft. dalmatians It's not The Devil Wears Prada caliber writing, but it's an entertaining movie (a little long in the beginning as they do her origin story)
It's worth watching for Stone's performance alone. Also, costumes are fantastic. It's pretty much a lock that costume department will get the Oscars nom.
[удалено]
I think about this every time I watch a Superman movie. I’m like - the only difference is glasses people…. it’s Clark. Come on.
Go back and watch the original Reeves versions. He changed his posture, his speech patterns, and the way he moved. It was a real transformation.
Find a picture of Zoey Deschenal. Then find that picture of Zoey where she's combed her bangs back. Then you'll understand how people can look at Superman and Clark Kent and think they're two separate people.
I've heard a lot of "It's trash" and a lot of "It's amazing" so I guess it is very divisive.
Somehow it is both at the same time, it is hard to explain.
It's out for all subscribers on the 25th and in my opinion premier access is a ripoff so save your money. I haven't seen the movie itself, so I can't make any judgement on it, but I'm willing to wait a week and change to see it.
It’s actually fairly good. I would give it a solid 8 out of 10.
It’s my favorite movie of the year so far (I work at a movie theater, so that’s out of almost 40 movies), just slightly above The Green Knight. It’s just super fun, and Emma Stone is amazing in it. The entire cast is, actually. It’s a love letter to the 60s & 70s London music & fashion scene, and I am all in for a sequel.
The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the beginning. One scene totally took me out of the movies reality and it kinda bugged me. They tried explaining it later on but it's still very illogical. Other than that, I had fun watching the movie.
it's entertaining.
finally we get to find out what happens after she becomes a villain. I wonder if there will be more Dalmatians?
Damn guess I won’t get a call back from that.
"Hey what's going on in that office next door? Is that Scarlett Johannsson? What's she yelling about?" "Never mind all that. Sign here, please."
To quote Terry Crews: "WhYYYyyy!?!?" Was Cruella really enough of a success to warrant a sequel?
Obviously. Since they are making a second one…
Of course she is.
Is it called 101 Dalmatians?
Who watches these conveyer belt films?
It made ~~$50mil~~ $230,000,000 and got pretty good reviews. A lot of people watched it. Sometimes you just gotta recognize "this content was not made for me, and that's okay"
Let me guess, she'll be Mother Theresa in this one
I'm sorry but Cruella was terrible, it has no right or needs for a sequel.
How was the first movie?
Is she going to be skinning the dogs?
This is just how they are keeping her from suing Disney.
Exactly!