Cruella
Maybe it’s primarily a Disney thing, but I’ve noticed a lot of movies where classic villains are given origins. This ends up making them sympathetic characters and explains why they’re bad. It even goes so far as to say they aren’t evil, but either misunderstood or misguided. For a while, it seemed to be going well, but then the trend started to die off with Cruella. Why?
Well, one of the things that seems to work for revamping an established villain is not going for one that could be considered irredeemable. Maleficent is evil, but she does a lot of fantasy punishments that are rather over-the-top. Darth Vader was already established as a fallen hero and died doing something good in ‘Return of the Jedi’. So, showing them as good people who were turned bad by circumstances or cruel treatment can help the audience relate to them. We wouldn’t go that far with their villainous actions, but we can see how they turned.
With Cruella, I saw a lot of people pointing out that her whole goal as a villain was to make clothing out of puppies . . . Yeah, I don’t care how poorly you were treated. There’s no excuse for that type of villainy. People typically don’t relate to anyone who goes on to kill animals or children. In fact, you’re more likely to upset people with the former instead of the latter, so Cruella was a really bad choice. This makes me wonder if there is more these villain origin stories that crop up at times.
I think ‘Joker’ tried to touch on this, but I didn’t see the movie, so I can’t be 100% certain of what I’m about to say. Many people told me that it was about a regular person descending into madness. You end up seeing how someone can turn evil. Not because you want them to be sympathized with or seen as a victim, but for the audience to understand that nobody is born that way. There are events in a person’s life to put them down the path of evil, which we don’t always acknowledge. It’s easier to believe someone is born a villain instead of being made. To think otherwise means accepting that we or someone we know could turn evil, which is unnerving.
A story that examines the psychology behind a villain makes sense to me. It still can be dangerous depending on the character you’re analyzing. Some crimes really don’t come off well if you try to say they did it because of past trauma. Even though that could be true, people won’t take to it very well. That’s because many don’t want to hear excuses for things like cannibalism, rape, puppy killing, etc. So, villains who do some truly horrific acts probably won’t work out with an origin unless you make them somewhat unlikable prior to being a villain. If not unlikable then at least pathetic to the point where the audience won’t mind turning on them.
So, what do other people think of taking established villains and giving them a sympathetic backstory?
Legends of Windemere 
I didn’t see the Cruella movie. But I have noticed the trend toward giving villains a backstory. Like Suzanne Collins’s book, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, which goes into the backstory of the villain in the Hunger Games series. I read that book and the original trilogy. I find the whole idea of giving us a book that delves into an antagonist’s backstory interesting, only because Collins wrote this prequel about her own character—not someone else’s. I can’t say I wanted to know Cruella’s backstory. She is a character in a book by Dodie Smith. What Dodie wrote is enough of a backstory as far as I’m concerned. Time Magazine has an article on what Smith wrote about Cruella in her book. (Very different from what I’ve heard of the premise of the Cruella movie.)
LikeLike
Good point. Authors doing it to their own creations works. They can easily make solid connections. Other people doing it means it’s fan-fiction, which can lose a lot of nuance and history.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s why I’m usually not as interested in seeing the backstory movies featuring classic characters. I did, however, see the first Maleficent movie. I enjoyed a lot of it. But I preferred what Collins did. She didn’t reimagine the character as someone misunderstood by others. After all, we already knew how he ended up.
LikeLike
Maleficent was interesting. I think that’s because it was the first one, so it came off as unique.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like my villains on the pure side. That is to say villains through and through. It makes it easier for me to hate them. Getting a glimpse of some reason why they act the way they do as a justification doesn’t ring true to me.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it justifies their actions as long as it’s done well. It could be a story showing how a person can fall into darkness. Just doesn’t get used that way a lot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like my villains to be hate-able! But I’ve had to be very careful what my 4+ year old grandson watches on Disney, so as not to scare the whey out of him. My son was traumatized by the witch in Snow White when he was six!
LikeLike
My son was terrified of Mother Gothenburg in Tangled. Didn’t have any fear of the other villains. Then again, Monstro the whale scared me a ton and nobody else did when I was younger. ET too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Funny what frightens individual kids!
LikeLike
I suppose anything can be done well. Having said that, I feel like most of it is a nostalgia based money grab. The original spelled out what we needed to know about the villain. Expanding on that generally ruins the original. We’ve reached a saturation point with compassion and understanding. Some people are just irredeemable. I just don’t need the backstory of Scar or the guy who killed John Wick’s puppy.
LikeLike
Definitely a money grab now. A few early attempts succeeded and then it became a trend. It’s like everyone wants to be Wicked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing would induce me to empathize with a dog-killer. Totally irredeemable!
LikeLike
Interesting how people have that line, but they’ll be okay with kids being killed in a story. Always found people like that odd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me too.
LikeLike
I don’t like kids being killed either!
LikeLike
Okay. Just saying some people are fine with it. Personally, I see kids and dogs are fair game in a story. I don’t like seeing it or reading it in fiction, but to avoid them makes the world feel more fake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t sat in on Disney’s writer’s room, but I do think it is partly a bid to hold onto copyrights. It think there’s also an urge keep an older series alive with a shot of new energy. And of course, streaming goes 24/7, so there’s a constant need for new material, even if it isn’t done well.
At the same time, people can definitely give their hearts to a charismatic villain. If a publisher sees a market, they will try to fill it.
LikeLike
Feels like they’re going for cash grabs. Would putting out a new version of a villain extend a copyright?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, because it will involve all the other characters in the franchise as well. Titles, images, characters all have their copyright updated with each new work.
LikeLike
That feels underhanded.
LikeLike