Characters That Shouldn't Have Origin Stories (video essay)
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- I do not endorse the opinions of any of the weird little old men I quote in this video.
Join the cool kids on Patreon: / babbitykate
References & Further Reading/Watching
Intro/Part 1
I use “Art Sins” as used (coined?) by CJ the X here: • 7 Deadly Art Sins
Their Rick and Morty video was also a major influence on this piece.
Hayley Whipjack watched all the Shrek there is, and is also making a fantastic Once Upon a Time recap series: @haleywhipjack
Director Mike Disa tells the horror story of his brief time as director of the attempted Seven Dwarfs prequel:
bit.ly/47Lh2b4
Dopey movie trailer: bit.ly/3Ogmw6O
“Not Every Character Needs an Origin Story,” Amelia Tait, Wired.com: www.wired.com/story/prequels-...
Part 2
Digital images of early edition Wizard of Oz book: www.loc.gov/item/03032405/
My favorite source on all things Oz is @ theozvlog on TikTok.
Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West (may be affiliate links)
The ebook is free with Kindle Unlimited: amzn.to/48AOZwd
Bookshop.org: bookshop.org/a/95396/97800609...
Amazon: amzn.to/3OgmZG6
Part 2B
Dr. Casey Fiesler (professercasey on tiktok) is one of my favored sources for explanations on IP law. Her YT video on Steamboat Willie is a good crash course on public domain and the way characters can be “partially” under copyright: • Steamboat Willie is in...
Gregory Maguire Interviews:
Video - AG 90: • Gregory Maguire, AG90:...
Text - Broadway World: bit.ly/3u6FpSU
Text - The Guardian: bit.ly/47GVSec
Part 2C
Neil Gamon addresses changing the Chesterton quote: bit.ly/3HPcbv7
Text of Tremendous Trifles by Chesterton: www.gutenberg.org/files/8092/...
Part 3
Interview with Gene Wilder: • Gene Wilder on Willy W...
Paper on “textual whitewashing” of oompa-loompas in revisions and adaptions: bit.ly/3O9K6Sr
More on Roald Dahl’s legacy from TIME: time.com/5937507/roald-dahl-a...
Interesting analysis of an early draft with a Black Charlie: www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/bo...
All films referenced: (letterboxd list)
letterboxd.com/babbity_kate/l...
TV shows:
Once Upon a Time (ABC) 2011-2018
The House of the Dragon (HBO/Max) 2022-
Game of Thrones (HBO/Max) 2011-2019
Better Call Saul (AMC) 2015-2022
The Adventures of Puss in Boots (Dreamworks/Netflix) 2015-2018
Books: (goodreads links)
THE BALLAD OF SONGBIRDS AND SNAKES, Suzanne Collins, 2020
/ the-ballad-of-songbird...
The Chronicles of Narnia series, C.S. Lewis, 1950-1956
/ 11127.the_chronicles_o...
TREMENDOUS TRIFLES (anthology), C.K. Chesterton
/ tremendous-trifles
WICKED, Gregory Maguire, 1995
/ 37442.wicked
Stage Shows:
Wicked, premiered 2003
00:00 Intro
02:45 What Is My Problem
23:06 Wicked
29:13 The Public Domain
39:07 Good & Evil
43:54 Willy Wonka
56:44 Kisses - Zábava
I always look at Cruella as if it's completely divorced from the Disney property. Somehow, that makes it infinitely more palpable.
yeah, I think Cruella aligns more closely to the way she describes Wicked... it certainly isn't a true prequel with the way it changed up the ending.
I came to the comments for this. Cruella ends up taking care of the dogs in the end. The events of that movie cannot lead to the events of 101 dalmatians. It's not an origin story, it's a character reimagining. Maleficent would have been a better example
Yeah, in the Cuella movie they essentially tell the audience that "this is an alternate universe to 101 Dalmatians" by having the husband of 101 fabricating that whole story.
Same. I see it as a reimagining. And like that one line that is seen as a throwaway “i just let them think that”. Who is telling her story.
This line gave me a Hamilton feel to it.
She is fine in being seen as a villain by the people even though she did not do the things people said she did yet.
It added more to the character.
I just people stop comparing it to Glenn Close and the original version.
But if Disney did not make it, would we be having this conversation?
The worst parts of the movie are easily when it has to remind everyone that it's a Disney origin story, because every callback to 101 Dalmations feels so obligatory. However as a fun crime movie about haute couture fashion, it's ridiculously rewatchable in a way it has no right to be.
“Why not?! Why don’t you like Dalmatians?!?!”
“BECAUSE DALMATIANS KILLED MY MOM OK?!”
I can’t take Cruella seriously.
in the original movie, I didn't even get the impression Cruella hated Dalmatians. In fact she liked their look and wanted to make coats out of them. She was indifferent to their suffering and willing to kill them to make coats.
@@staceynainlab888she literally had nothing against Dalmatians, she was just a crazy fashionista/designer. If they REALLY wanted a sympathetic prequel (unneeded anyway, but well) it should be about the cutthroat world of fashion and beauty, not the wierd fuckery about Dalmatians and her mommy issues
I want to point out that in the movie she ends up befriending the very same Dalmatians that killed her mom, she holds no grudge against them.
Because she doesn't even dislike dogs in the movie, she loves dogs. She'd never do anything to hurt dogs.
They go out of their way to give her an absurd excuse to hate Dalmatians, and then didn't even actually use it.
@@tevenpowell8023 I guess, but then that makes the whole movie just kinda pointless, no?
@@jagodadelega8130 In my opinion, yeah. It's just a real bad prequel because where we leave Cruella and where she picks up in the original are incompatible.
They are two completely different characters, they are nearly opposites.
I dont think a backstory for Wonka is interesting. What I do think is interesting is the backstory for the character and candy and Roald Dahl. Wonka isnt the protagonist of the book and Dalh absolutely hated the name change. He also found 1971 Wonka and Charlie to be overly sentimental and sappy, which wasn't their relationship at all. In Boy, Dalhs autobiography of his childhood, he talks about how he eventually ends up at boarding school and hates it. Theres lots of abuse and illogical, irrational adults (which is nearly all the adults in his books until his divorce in the early 80s), but one bright spot is that Cadbury would send the boys experimental chocolate bars to try and rate. And all the boys took the job very seriously. So, in his experience, fantastical candy creations were a thing and adults NEEDED children to make them. Thats why Wonka needs a child and childlike wonder and creativity - bc Cadbury did too. And Charlie doesn't win bc he is the sweetest and most obedient; he wins bc he's the cleverest and the downtrodden, abused boy who appreciates the candy the most. Just like Dalh and the boarding school boys.
Also, the whole Wonka dentist story is stupid, but loosely based on Dalhs candy memories from before boarding school. He and his little friends would walk to school and pass a candy store. Dalhs favourite were licorice bootlaces. His friend's dad was doctor and caught his friend in bed eating one. Not wanting his kid to sneak sweets and eat them after brushing his teeth, told him an elaborate, disgusting tale about how theyre made from rats.
I wouldn't say Wonka is evil, per se, but he is an early Roald Dahl adult. Which is to say he's an adult seen through the lens of a child. He's irrational and angry and complicated and unfair and unpredictable. He's not a Dahl villain bc Dahl villains are directly, physically abusive to children. But he is uncaring and neglectful (like by not intervening when kids get hurt in an environment full of hidden dangers), bc thats how Dahl adults are. They dont swoop in and save kids from their own mistakes. They create chaotic environments where kids are the only sane, rational beings who must be thoughtful and resourceful to stay safe.
Woah, You just described my childhood
Good comment. Nice explanation. Did you read his autobiography by any chance? Is it worth a read?
Dahl had issues
I feel like it's extra unnecessary in anything in the realms of bizarro fiction, unless you are intending to suddenly ground the world back into reality. Like, the Wicked Witch of the West- why is she green? Book heavily implies she's from a race of green people. Has nothing to do with greed whatsoever. But, that went over so well in Wicked, that's now considered the canon explanation for most people, so I guess they think this line of reasoning works, but the whole point of bizarro fiction is that nothing is rationally explainable & you're supposed to just go with it & not question.
He's not angry, nor unfair.
Dahl's Wonka is a jolly little man who knows FULL well that the nasty kids won't be able to resist the temptations of the specific rooms they meet their downfalls. Yet even he can assure the parents that despite the horrible things that will happen to them, they'll still turn out all right, albeit drastically changed. That was the whole point of the story. Wonka's factory test was highlighting the nasty possibilities of what could happen if you didn't change bad habits as a kid instead of growing into a foul adult. And lo and behold he gives the entire Factory to the kid who not only resists every temptation but is the most deserving. Mr Wonka is someone who will toy with danger but also knows when too much is too much. He's not bitter, he's not sadistic, when it all comes down to it, he's not even really that irrational. It's the results of the kids who go out of their way to set themselves up for failure that only proves his point.
Think of him as the cat in the Hat meets Tony stark. Know it all agents of controlled chaos.
That is the Wonka that I saw in the Charlemet movie. Or at least, the makings of him. Not the bland, cynical Wilder one and certainly not the overly childish Johnny Depp portrayal. The Wonka movie is the most Roald Dahl thing that's ever been made without having the author actually being involved. And shame on you forever suggesting the things that the real Mr Willy Wonka isn't.
In slight defense for Lewis's "Read the books in any order" stance, iirc, he was responding to a child asking him to settle a debate that they were having with friends. So I think it was less about "order doesn't matter" and more "don't gatekeep and bully your friends for reading the books 'wrong' it literally is not that important"
But who am I to speak? I read Dawntreader first, and I know *that's* wrong.
Good point. I also read the wrong book first. The Horse and His Boy was in a "free book" box at my parents' bank in the 90s and me, a 10yo bookworm, thought the name was funny, read it, loved it, and rushed to my parents "HEY! HEY! LOOK AT THIS BOOK AND ON THE BACK IT SAYS THERE ARE MORE STORIES IN THE SERIES!!!"
My dad lost a lot of my trust at that moment, because he goes "oh, yeah, the Chronicles of Narnia, I know those books." WHAT! and you never told me?
But maybe he made up for it a couple of years later when he showed up "I bought this three book series for you at the thrift store, I know you like long fantasy stories" and it was the Lord of the Rings. (but I didn't really read them until I was a teenager whose crush loved them; the descriptions were too much detail for me to power through to the good stuff without an outside influence. I just couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters until Gandalf died. Then suddenly it all got interesting and I've been a big fan ever since.)
That's actually a wholesome story.
@@er6730 My Dad accidentally started reading Two Towers first. Not surprisingly , he got hopelessly confused and bailed on it entirely until a fews years later when he finally stared with Fellowship and could actually figure out what the heck was going on 😂
@@er6730 when i was 8 my dad gave me Prince Caspian, which is an odd intoduction to the series, now that think about it. Why Caspian? I loved it even without any context, though. It does have the most straightforward story, maybe thats why he chose it? Or maybe he just found it in a free box 😂 now I gotta call my dad and ask 😂 😂
I started _Harry Potter_ with _Prisoner of Azkaban_ and it wasn't confusing -- the author included enough explanations that someone new could come into the series and not be confused. Back in the days before the internet (or even during the early dial-up days of the internet), we had very few resources to look up information about a book and for those of us who couldn't afford to buy as many books as we wanted to read, we would have to read whatever was available in the libraries we had access to, not all of which were properly curated.
I think Cruella should have a backstory BUT! It needs to maintain that she's always been an unhinged, bad person to her core all the way up to her being a rich fashion designer. I wrote my own version of Cruella where she has a "anything for the art and my personal pleasure" mentality and doing shit like pulling the wings off of bugs because the iridescence made for good art as a kid, and the version I wrote culminated in her kidnapping the dog of a rival in her fashion design class after being insulted, using the dog's pelt for her masterpiece to win a competition, and making it appear to the judges that her distraught rival is mentally unwell for accusing her of taking her dog, leaving her as the winner of some internship or other high position in the industry. Which would put her where she was at her first appearance - as an already rich and famous designer after having had decades of success, and finding another source of inspiration (someone else's dog)
Love it! He'll even once upon a time kept cruella as unhinged one of her lines was even as a little girl I saw darkness and went why not
Wow! I wish they had let you write the screenplay for Cruella, bc I would have watched the heck out that!
@@ErinRaeASMR I wanna make a fan film but I would be sued into oblivion by The Mouse House™️ and I rather like having the potential of a life and writing career not burdened by Mickey and Co so alas 😅
@@ErinRaeASMR also this comment made my day tysm
@@skyr5247While Disney owns their own version of the story, the original story that inspired Disney (a novel) will be public domain in 2061... So only 37 more years to go. 🫠
Jenny Nicholson hit the nail on the head on why biopics on creatives don't work. Filmakers just don't understand how to portray the creative process in an interesting way other than seeing references Irl and then copying them.
Personally, I think it applies to fictional creatives too, Cruella just sees the iconic Things she had in the original movie in her life (Evil Laugh, Calling people Imbeciles, etc.) and then copies them wholesale which removes the things those choices said about her personality. Obviously I can't be sure about Wonka, but it really seems like it's going the same way.
"A Top Hat! By jove, I'll put that in my story!"
Also, people were absolutely GASLIT by Gene Wilder's version of Wonka. People just forgot how creepy he's always been, but no one noticed because Gene Wilder is just very charismatic.
I wouldn't say that *no one* noticed. The boat scene with him in harsh lighting while singing an ominous poem as gory pics of nature flash by makes it pretty obvious that Wonka is not a good guy.
Tbh a villain origin story but shes a slay villain the whole time, like no one is rooting for her but damn do we love to watch her scheme. Thats what it is for me, they hoped on the band wagon of ppl as a meme kinda being like actually malificent should’ve been invited? They were rude to her! And took that to making her an anti hero, to then shoving other iconic villains into that storyline. Its upsetting cause you could’ve seen how she really earned her reputation, and the campy devilish things she got involved in in her youth.
I think the best portrayal of creative process I've ever seen was probably the movie Crossroads with Ralph Macchio, and he wasn't so much formally creating as learning how to communicate emotion in music, and that that's what music's supposed to do in the first place
also are we just forgetting that it's cannon that cruella coveted the dog's fur pattern bc she wanted to make fur coats out of it???
Right?! Cruella sucks because we already know her motivations (especially if you've read the original book). She's a rich woman who's never been told no in her life, & couldn't handle it.
Exactly, she wanted skin puppies, I don’t care about her origin story.
Wait is that not what happened? I thought that was the explanation. She likes the dogs fur so she wanted a coat
Ironically, I think Wicked is the problem - everyone tried to do A Wicked, but missed exactly why and how Wicked works in the first place. Or should I say, both versions of Wicked.
What does Wicked have that nothing else has?
@@gothnerd887 Didn't she spend a LOT of the video discussing just that? It's what Wicked DOESN'T have, that the others do have. The others that she's objecting to are official additions to the story from the same company that made the original versions (to which they are connected anyway); or they're at least being presented as related to the earlier stand-out versions. (Like, WONKA is trying,via things like costuming, to create a sort of visual relationship to the Wilder movie.) Wicked is the product of... a guy, who has no relationship to the original books, or to the movie company that made the '39 film (MGM). Despite the musical using the visual cues established by the film, Wicked still stands apart from those other works. In contrast, movies like Cruella, Maleficent, the Little Mermaid movie discussed, and so on, are official works presented by the same company that made the original films and that still owns the IP.
I think it's up to the individual to decide how much that distinction matters -- but I think this sums up Babbity Kate's position for why she reacts to them differently.
I wonder if some of what makes Wicked work is that the original texts, both book and movie, invite moral critique. There's a thick layer of satire in the original book, including a lot of political commentary about financial systems and the gold standard. And it isn't a coincidence that the movie is from the 30s, when there was also a lot of criticism and suspicion about leaders and their economic influences. The Wizard of Oz literally shows you the "ultimate good guy" and then tells you he's lying. It isn't a stretch to just let Wizard of Oz be a political satire/commentary, letting the nice childhood adventure go. And Wicked's rewriting of villain and hero (even in the fluffier musical) is meant to be overtly political. "Where I come from, we tell all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it history." So maybe that's taking the story in a direction the text already allows for.
Also the movie is. Not well written. I have a massive rant I could go on, and have. Many times. But id rather not piss myself off for 2 hours.
@@elfi643 Is there a Wicked film that I missed besides the one scheduled for release this November?
@@LiminalQueenMedia I'm talking about the wizard of Oz movie. I was raised on the books and didn't see the movie till I was 15. Almost threw up when I saw what they did to the munchkins
yes!! wicked was a surprisingly good intro to anti-capitalism to 11 year old me, especially since I wasn't allowed to read the book. I've always enjoyed its explanation of how elphaba became "evil". especially as a young queer kid, it was comforting to have a character born "odd", and be ostracized for it.
Maguire’s whole Oz series is among my very favorite books
Yes you’re right about the political overtones and I freaking adore the musical
You hit the nail on the head with your explanation. That’s why I didn’t feel a need for the Cruella movie. It’s ok if some villains are bad just because they are bad and not because they have a big traumatic back story.
but the thing is, its a reimagining, the movie isnt the origin of the cruella we already knew, its a story using the idea of her character, in the real 101 Dalmatians shes actually evil, the one in the movie isnt, so its not the same character
On the contrary, all the original Disney villains were meant to lack depth because there still were the lingering morality laws (yes literal laws) from earlier in the century which had very specific rules on how to make a villain and not promote perceived immorality as sympathetic. This is why you see the stereotypical villain as someone as evidently queer as possible, homosexuality was explicitly stated to be literally legally immoral. This is what lead to the phrase "cartoonishly evil". Bigotry relies on people accepting "evil" behavior as an inherent flaw defining the person's entire self rather than the result of the effect of their environment or a defense mechanisn. In the original movie, you weren't meant to ask why Cruella hated dogs specifically, you, a child, were just literally encoded to associate queer behavior with meanness.
@@Badusername2000 she has the same name, theme, and is meant to be the same character. It's meant to replace the original with the reimagining.
@@toxihex876I can sort of understand your point here for some movies, but in this case, I don’t think it’s applicable. unless you necessarily mean to associate “queer behavior” with wanting to kill puppies for their fur, which was absolutely the reason Cruella was an easy villain for children
@@ErinRaeASMR While she was supposed to portray the kinds of designers activists throw red paint on, and it would be understandable to show little kids a more simplified villain, the original Cruella acts, looks and speaks the exact same way queer male villains in prior media had been written in order to demonize queerness itself. They didn't happen to make them like that, it was very intentional.
We don’t want a backstory for Mufasa, because we see Mufasa, even before his untimely death we see him as this like almost like God, like figure, almost like Azlan in the chronicles of Narnia series
I think there is also an implied backstory in that the entire movie is about the CIRCLE of life. At the end of the film, we see Simba’s son in the exact same ceremony that simba had himself. It’s safe to say mufasa’s backstory is likely very similar to simba’s, where he was forced to learn through hardships and maintain the balance of the ecosystem with responsibility of a king. He tells simba he was taught by his own father, that’s also what makes simba’s story especially tragic, he has to find his way to his strength and leadership skills on his own, without guidance and without even the pride’s support. If mufasa is god, simba is definitely Jesus 😂
@@lolalover24212 it is also based on biblical stories and hamlet.
@@lolalover24212 useless, dumb correction that isnt even introduced in the first movie but thats his daughter at the end not his son 🫶
Oh that's where Ariel's mom died!
I rewatched Little Mermaid last year for the first time in decades, now as a parent, expecting that I would identify more with Triton than Ariel and was shocked to see that Triton is basically having a Satanic Panic over humans. It being the 80s, that was a fascinating cultural commentary. So I wrote about it on Facebook. And one of my friends, trying to undermine my argument said that Triton wasn't being unreasonable because of how Ariel's mother died and I was completely baffled, since that is not in the original text. I assumed it was in Little Mermaid 2 (which 10 year old me, burgeoning film snob refused to watch out of principle), but it's even weirder to know it was in an even more distant prequel.
I think that's what people mean when they say the new thing hurts the old thing. Because canon gets messed up. And your memory of the original thing can get rewritten.
especially bc we know that was never the authors/writes/animators original intent! people can argue all they want about the new motives of an evil character and say there's some hidden backstory 10 years after the fact, we know that wasn't there when the original was published!
Last paragraph is the reason why I don't trust sequels and live action remakes.
This makes me think about the brilliance of The Series of Unfortunate Events how the first books fit neatly into storybook/Disney narratives about good and evil for children, then grow alongside the reader layering in shades of gray. I think it only works because it's earned! The series wouldn't have any emotional weight if you hopped from book 1 to 13. Once you've been following the same characters for a long time from the same dedicated creator(s) it allows for growth and rewards the reader. These prequels just feel like your abusive ex learning therapy talk out of nowhere. Twin Peaks The Return is another good example of a follow up that works because people were genuinely curious to learn more and David Lynch had more to say as a creator.
Oh my stars another SOUE fan- hello!! I've always though these books were brilliant because they were a deconstruction of so many staples of children's lit: the good guys don't always win, evil isn't always defeated, and the world is frequently unfair and cruel. It also read, to me, as a critique of the foster system by parodying it to the extreme. I 100% agree that the payoff in the series lies within following all of the characters through all 13 books, and would also add that Snicket's ability to keep mystery alive without frustrating his audience is another factor in its success. Through all 13 books he drops hints about VFD, the schism, and many other events- but he never reveals his hand. He gives you just enough that you're curious and want to know more, without ruining the mystery. Prequels ruin the mystery.
Which ever book from SOUE had them at a circus/carnival was the only one I owned on audiobook cassette, and the libraries only ever had multiple copies of the first couple books and so many book 7s
The audio books were SO good. Depending on which one you listened to you either got the author himself or Tim Curry!!!@@Big_Mad_Drongo
I remember reading these books after school while waiting for my dad's shift to end at the bookstore. I'll have to find the audiobooks now 😂
for me, the fact that nobody really has an extensive backstory and we don't get answers to most of the mysteries really improves the series as a whole. because that's not what the story is about, it's about the Baudelaires. it fits the tone very well.
Also, I haven’t had a chance to say this somewhere, but Ariel’s beginning is an adaptation of the 12 dancing princesses
I had always seen it as Footloose and now I need to reevaluate all three of these films together 😂
When I saw Elphaba in the thumbnail I immediately thought- nope she's different from the other ones. Loved your take. I also love Maguire got the name from the syllables of L. Frank Baum, it was a nice tribute to the author that started it all.
Right? I have liked Kate’s other videos but I was cautious clicking on this one, ready to fight someone over Elphaba lmao
Glad my faith in Kate had me still watch it instead of avoiding out of fear of violent disagreement
" It doesn't break the storyline; it breaks the character, which in my book is way more important." I love this line. It hits the nail on the head for a lot of issues of mine across various media. I also really like your point about how "villain" is just a role in a story, and that just as not all villains are evil, all evil characters aren't villains. That's a really great point.
The story little mermaid is based on. Ariel dies , after refusing to undo the legs.
Takeaway from this: I think it should make anyone really angry that the copyright extension act means the 1939 film won't be public domain until 2035 and the entire Oz book series won't be public domain until 2059. That two generations of people will have lived and mostly died before this material is allowed to be used by our culture again.
None of the wizard of oz books are in public domain?! Not even the first? Wtf.
@@xXLunatikxXlulthe first few books are public domain. But there are about 30 books in the series and over half of them are still in copyright
Wtf😭
All of the books written by L. Frank Baum have been public domain for a while. So has the first sequel written by Ruth Plumly Thompson. The next couple books might be in public domain by now, at least anything written before 1924.
Edit: The copyright issues with the movie are tied directly to things that only exist in the movie. Such as later adaptations can't make the Wicked Witch of the West the same shade of green, you can't use the songs without permission, and characters like Professor Marvel belong to MGM/Warner Bros.
I think most ppl who grew up on wizard of oz do not want modern hollywood adapting it. Most older folks cant stand hollywood. Im sure they'd throw in racial diversity and queerness which that demographic hates. It would be younger audiences who would eat it up.😊
I’m rewatching OUAT. And one of my favorite things is they kept showing all of the backstory’s for how the villians weren’t evil and then when they got to Cruella they set it up like she was getting a redemption but the plot twist was that no- she was born evil and she likes it
Came for the Wonka slander, stayed for the Narnia talk
So… Wicked is the baby that the movie had in high school, but it’s parent the book raised it and so the musical thinks it’s the movie’s sibling and shared many traits with their grandparent book who raised them?
Now I wonder how the upcoming wicked film adaptations will fit into this tree…
That was confusing
I just had a stroke reading that. Thank you.
Andi Mac
Sounds like a long and very convoluted way of saying "It's an exception because I liked it."
Tbh I love the Stepmothers backstory from 2015 Disney Live Action Cinderella. She got a small backstory but she still was the villain, her actions never were excused or sth like that. Obviously the stepmother is one of the easiest Disney villains to "redeem" (unlike Maleficent for example)
Maleficent doesn’t need a backstory, she already had one- she was mad she didn’t get invited, so she ruined it.
I think what's key is subtlety. The backstory isn't clumsily slammed into your face. It isn't patronising at all.
"Let chaos be chaos. Trying to make sense out of Willy Wonka would be like trying to explain why the Joker wants to watch the world burn." Beautifully put!
there's a Joker movie too
@@staceynainlab888yeah but the ‘reason why’ in the joker is just he’s kinda messed up and severely mentally ill, which like duh.
@@staceynainlab888The Wonka movie should have been more like the Joker movie. Joker worked because it kept him a villain. Too many backstory movies about villain movies make them into heroes. Cruella, Maleficent, etc. Wonka is evil. He laughs at child death and endangerment. He has his minions sing songs about it. The Wonka movie doesn't lean into any of that. In fact it ignores it.
@@jaminelvers7250Wonka's NOT evil. The kids survive in the book & the Tim Burton movie.
@@splat-trainproductions but how would he know they were going to live?
11:29 YES ALL OF THIS
This is my entire issue with Disney’s Maleficent. I did not come here for a grape allegory. I just wanted a fabulous snatched witch decide to kill a baby because she was snubbed and didn’t get invited to the hottest social event of the season
I especially hate the trope that raped girls and women are so damaged that they become destructive to society. But I guess "woman finds inner strength, heals, and opens her village's first rape crisis center" isn't as filmic a story.
This makes me so sad that its just another giving the evil character a tragic backstory because i love the live action maklificent so much but i definitely would be fin to see her just evil like she is in the original story maybe disney is just scared of having a main character be evil just to be evil
petty villain characters that live on spite have my heart
In the wise words of the Killian Experience: “No she wasn’t! She was super evil, it was great!”
@@lotsoflovetoyouexcept that's not how the faire folk work and that's kinda the whole point to the maleficent movies. Plus the original novels are WAY darker
I read The Magician’s Nephew first as a kid because I was lead to believe it was the first book and… it was really confusing. Don’t do that. You’re so right.
as someone who owns the series WHAT?? so weird, why put 1 on the side 😭
When I was a kid I disagreed, I read the books in that order and loved it (magicians nephew, wardrobe, horse and his boy, Prince caspian, dawn treader, silver chair, last battle) and I loved the magicians nephew as my favorite book. If it was put towards the end I don’t know if I’d have focused on it as much
But now ive changed my mind damn
I read Magician's Nephew first and I think I felt like I got it
I read them in the original order and that book definitely made the biggest impact on me. I didn't need it to be first. I liked the wardrobe being first. Those two books stuck with me like none of the other ones did.
Yeah I saw Narnia, then my mom got me the books I thought it ws weird Narnia wasn't first.
I tried to read Magicians nephew, but gave and read Narnia first.
Good to know I was right😂
im so glad youtube recommended me your 5 hr deep dive about kirsten cus now im here. really love how insightful and thoughtful you are.it's inspiring me in the way i write my own villains!! thank you for your thoughts !!!
Personally my main problem with writing a backstory is not humanizing the villain, that is okay, the problem is when it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't fit or does awkwardly in the universe and storyline we already have.
Yeah this! Like, Cruella never showed any motivation other than "dalmatians would make great coats". And suddenly we are supposed to believe she wants them d'eau cause they killed her mom?
I call certain things the Once Upon a Time treatment because they kept trying to make characters sympathetic and then making a different one and it becomes so horrifically muddled that it’s no longer a story you can have a sense of emotional reality in.
OUAT is hard for me to watch for that reason. Well, other reasons too. But having villains go on heroic quests and combining distinct characters into one person broke the suspension of disbelief for me. Although the series did do one thing right: they portrayed Peter Pan as a villain who manipulates people into thinking he's a hero, which is accurate to the character in the original books.
Once Upon a Time ended up being a "all the women are misunderstood victims, and Rumpelstiltskin is the source of all their problems" story.
@@freman007god forbid we have sympathetic female characters! Yes that’s clearly the problem here 🤓
And yet Once Upon a Time was able to create a better backstory for Cruella in less than 45 minutes than the actual movie did in the span of its entire running time.
Ironically enough, the only person in that show to not have a tragic backstory was Cruella. She was just a psycho bitch.
Not just do children deserve monsters, but children will purposefully create monsters to see if they can defeat them, and, in play, they usually do. So to rid the world of monsters entirely is to rid children of the ability to be strong and brave when needed
I didn’t even know I read Narnia “wrong” until you started talking about it, my aunt gave me a volume with all 7 books when I was a kid and its chronologically arranged lol
Same, right down to it being given to me by my aunt 😅
@@melbapeach162 we should start a club or something 😂
I read them chronologically but never finished The Horse and His Boy or The Last Battle
@@staceynainlab888 You're not missing anything not finishing them.
For The Little Mermaid, I thought it was always implied that humans being dangerous was the reason Triton was so scared of them. Even though it’s not explicitly in the movie, I just always thought it was about how humans treat the environment, the ocean, and things different from them that make them dangerous. I mean, I’m sure the mermaids and creatures had to watch humans come through and fish for food. Sure he was a bit over the top about it, but it also seems like a valid reason. And with that, Triton letting Ariel marry Eric was him realizing that not all humans are bad and evil. I mean Eric literally saved his daughter’s life. But maybe that’s just me thinking too dark 😅
I think he believes humans are dangerous because his wife was killed by humans.
Well yes... For the movie anyway. The story from H C Andesen however, is very sad.
Yes. It didn't hurt the narrative to have Triton have a reason. And the fact that the shark scene and the Ursula scenes were so much scarier live action underlined the point. There was plenty of danger in the sea. Keeping her there wouldn't keep her safe, so his insistence that she should stay bc humans are dangerous is still a fairly dumb reason.
@@Adronitisbut in the original (havent seen the live action) the dangerous things she encounters in the sea she only encounters when shes running off on her own against her father's express wishes, tbf. humans and the land are dangers he knows even less about and so it makes sense that he'd forbid her from going near them. in the og movie i never took it as some deeply personal hatred of humans but a mistrust of them and extreme overprotectiveness. "i hate all humans because they killed my wife" is corny and on the nose.
This video is so well made and it really helped to explain why "x character is really dead/ in a coma" theories about media always got under my skin so much.
Invoking S3B of Once Upon a Time got me thinking about the ways it ties into your discussion: Zelena believes herself to be evil (wicked) to a fault BECAUSE it is the only option presented to her her whole life, to the point that her main motivation is casting a time-travel spell to completely reinvent herself and her circumstances, while her storyline is set up to disprove her exact mindset in the form of Regina's redemption arc. Zelena has been boxed in by others and has boxed herself into the role a stock villain and can't understand that she doesn't have to be.
This!
"Every time I see this thing that I don't like, God kicks a fawn" is going to make its way into my daily vocabulary
(Although -- the closed captioning aside, I would bet that Kate means "a faun", the Greek mythological creature. Because Mr. Tumnus the faun was such a huge character in TLTW&TW, and he's not unique, there's lots of other fauns in Narnia.)
Someone at Disney found some very specific fanfics about side characters from their renaissance era of films and figured that everyone must want something like that in a movie.And then made the movie bad because they don’t understand why people make/like AU fanfiction and how writing it from a fan perspective is different and in some cases sometimes better.
As a fanfiction writer who enjoys a good tragic backstory, I hate when people try to use the tragic backstory to make the character less deplorable. I'm writing a fanfic about a favorite villain of mine right now. In canon he has a tragic backstory, but I love that no one sees his backstory and thinks, that makes these actions excusable. They see him being like this and think he's a monster who deserves his just end and his backstory is nothing compared to the heroes. In my current fanfiction one of the characters legit screams at him that his trauma doesn't excuse him doing what he's doing. I have him use the line that his needs outweigh MC's wants because he believes he has a divine right to rule and therefore he is entitled to do what he wants especially after the life he's lived. It's so much fun to write because he's a villain that acts like his trauma outweighs other people's free will and at no point do I ever feel like he's anything more than a rich kid who got a dose of reality.
“…Even if you don’t live in Russia”
My girl is gonna get poisoned by the KGB
I enjoyed the Wonka movie overall. It certainly wasn’t the best, the songs were forgettable, and the plot got pretty convoluted by the end, but It was colorful and whimsical and a decently good time. Timothee Chalamet as Wonka lacked a bit of the subtle madness of Gene Wilder's portrayal, but I found him rather charming.
All that said, I agree with you that there is no reason for this movie to exist. I gained little by seeing this film and would have lost nothing by not watching it. We need to go see more original films so we can encourage these big studios that that's what we want.
We also should try not to spend money to see films by studios we don't want to support
i like the movie but i do agree you this movie wanst really nesserary
Yup unnecessarily connected to an already existing story but lot's of fun if don't think too* hard about it. And it's probably a matter of taste but I liked the songs "For a moment" still pops into my head randomly.
@@Pandie2828 aw that song was sweet also at the begging the into pure imagination sounded like a lullaby
I think that there's a huge misunderstanding that takes place in people who hate Cruella and don't want to watch it: the writers themselves have said that this movie is not a prequel, it's meant to be an alternative universe where Cruella is completely unrelated to the villain from the cartoons. It was a re invention of an interesting concept, the idea of a villainous fashion queen that hates Dalmatians and has inexplicably natural two toned hair was cool, and they wanted to have fun with that concept completely outside of the confines of the original 101 Dalmatians. The movie is NOT meant to explain the original Cruella's intentions in any way whatsoever, because in the Cruella universe, the original movie never happened, Cruella never goes on to try and kill Dalmatians for fur coats.
Idk I feel like that's not better. Like they just didn't want to have to commit to the core aspect of the character (that she is obsessed with dalmatians and wants their fur) so they took the most superficial aspects of your character and then flattening them and rounding their edges.. considering the stranglehold Disney has on their characters thanks to crazy long copyright, the fact they won't do anything interesting with them frustrates me. It's not cruella at that point, it's a costume
@@ruminationstation4200 That's literally not true though. I'm not even a fan of the movie, but the movie definitely had substance, and it had things to say. The point is that the story isn't about Cruella, Cruella is just an interesting vessel that the writers chose in order to deliver a message, and they wrote her character based around that, keeping only the things that they felt served the story. There was nothing superficial or surface level about the development of Cruella's character in the movie. I think that a lot of people are too quick to dismiss anything that isn't curated to their specific tastes as "superficial" because they can't accept that there can be substance to an artistic choice that doesn't match their specific tastes. Cruella was a very interesting character visually, and I can see why they chose to base a new character around her, rather than creating something completely new. It's okay if that choice isn't really to your liking, but dismissing an objectively good movie as having no substance just because you disagree with an artistic choice is in itself pretty superficial.
if they don't want that character then they could just make a whole new original character/movie/story with a similar premise. But no that wouldn't be as easy to market, so she's Cruella but not THAT Cruella ... I hate it here.
@@taylorg2320sounds very similar to the execution of Joker & using the joker as a vessel for exploring certain themes rather than contributing to the Batman canon
thats pretty silly tho right, its like when a kid writes a fanfiction about a character in which that character looks and acts completely different and has a different backstory and is basically just an original character but they write it as fanfiction to get more eyes on it. thats kind of an irritating move for a big budget studio to pull.
This is something I've been thinking about for years, especially in relation to Disney and superhero films. It's one of the things that make characters like Doctor Doom or a lot of Batman's villains fun. Speaking as a comic book fan, like... Yeah, all these characters do have (often tragic) backstories, but when done right they never outright overshadow the Evil For Evil's Sake either. You can make as many versions of "ooooh the Joker has a sad past with blah blah blah" and I won't goddamn care, but give me the Joker taking over the TV networks to put hostages through a rigged game show and I'm there. And of course, does anyone give a shit about say, if the Emperor from Star Wars has a backstory? No. He's the goddamn Emperor and he's an evil manipulative old man who wants to rule the galaxy and that's that. That's what makes him a fun villain.
These days there's few villains who have the guts to call themselves The Dark Lord Professor Death or Madame Evil or some shit like that and wear big outfits that scream "I'M EVIL". Now it's always "Hi I'm Sadguy McRebel and I have some points about society, but not in such a way as to prevent this movie from getting funding from the U.S. military." And sure, complex villains have their place (god knows I love Magneto), but sometimes you just want a guy whose backstory doesn't go any deeper than "the ethics board told me I'm not allowed to do my experiment". We need more villains who are evil for the sake of being evil.
I agree
“We need more villains who are evil for the sake of being evil” that’s literally the whole cinematography before now, you have plenty to choose from
KINDA BIG SPOILERS FOR THE BATMAN 2022
And The Batman 2022 does the whole villain having a sympathetic backstory the RIGHT way imo, or at least better than most movies these days. The Riddler grew up an orphan, neglected and bullied by the other kids, and thanks to the corrupt cops and Carmine Falcone, he lived in even more poverty since they turned the funding for the orphanage into money laundering that benefits THEM and not the orphans. Does he have points about the system being corrupt? Sure. Is Riddler portrayed as good? Hell no. In fact, as Batman puts it, he’s a “pathetic psychopath begging for attention.” Riddler is also basically just an incel redditor with an army of reddit fanboys following him like he’s a mother duck. Riddler has a sad backstory, but ultimately he uses it as a weapon and excuse for what he did.
I really like the idea of mundane indifference to ethics leading to full-blown storybook evil -- "the review board didn't approve my experiment so I did it anyway and got what I wanted" can boringly lead to an escalation of persecution complex and moral indifference until the character -- or dare I say IRL person -- is functionally indistinguishable from evil.
But it's not really a compelling story. Just someone with a lack of a moral compass and their indifference causing more and more harm.
Cruella is a super fun and creative movie if you just don’t think of it in any connection to 101 Dalmatians. I lowkey wish Disney had the guts to yank one of their own characters out of their story, erase all the old story off them, and then go “now what” because honestly they’d be working from a better foundation than whatever they’re using right now
I kinda feel like that's what they did with Maleficent. Maybe I'm biased because I love that movie, but she's just *so* different from the animated character, that I feel like she stands well on her own as a different character from a different story that happens to be yet another interpretation of Sleeping Beauty. (And technically a more accurate one, as the fairy that curses Aurora in the original tale wasn't a villain)
@@BriarValleythe first one was a lot of fun, never saw the second one! I do agree Maleficent is sort of in the same category as Cruella
@averyeml The second one suffers from sequelitis, unfortunately, but it's still a fair bit of fun and lore for the character
Sobbing because it isn't a 6 hour American girl read along craftathon, smiling because it's a new video anyways!!
7:25 I 1000% disagree specifically with this point on Triton. Trauma is occasionally a thing that can lead to biased and prejudiced beliefs. And overcoming your bias because you love your family is just as powerful whether or not you understand the source of the bias. Also the TV show exists, which shows Triton has always been a bit of a hardass stuck in his beliefs, which provides for depth of character, and an ability to grow and change.
I don't think added depth breaks a character, unless it directly breaks the lore of the story, which this example doesn't do. Cruella did though, Wonka did too. But TLM3 didn't do that
Yeah her triton explanation was off.
I wanted to hate Cruella, but it was actually pretty good.
The only reason is because it doesn't feel like it's a disney movie.
As its own movie, it's great!
As an origin story, it's just makes excuses for an eventual animal abuser.
Edit: I had to add about Narnia
100% with you about the order
The Magician's Nephew is written with the assumption you KNOW the characters and the world.
When they show the white witch, she isn't named "White Witch." You're supposed to connect the dots yourself.
Otherwise, first-time readers are like ." Who is this random lady??"Why is there a lion?" Because the book DOESN'T tell you how important they are. You're supposed to already know from the other books what's going on.
My biggest issue with Cruella is how they treated her. I don't like it when villains are given unnecessarily tragic backstories. Like she was fine being a mean old woman who hates animals. You don't need to "justify" it.
I don’t think it made excuses for her.
She is a sociopath ( i know it is termed anti social now, but let me use this word) in the original. She is a sociopath at the end of the live action. There are articles that say sociopaths can make connections and you see them in her friends and it is only five total. While she sees them as family, she also sees them as people to use which is what a sociopath does. I do respect her loyalty to the people who are loyal to her and that this version has a threshold.
I also feel it having a sequel is beginning to show her gradual escalation into the insane or delusional Cruella we know. I feel the writers have more up their sleeves.
But that is my interpretation.
@@gabrielleduplessis7388
She hates dogs bc her parents got knocked off a cliff. Really.... THAT'S what they came up with?
Disney came up with that lukewarm plot.
@@vvitch-mist20 i get you on that. But like the other things they did with her character.
While it sounds funny, I can understand that being traumatic. But do get your point.
@@gabrielleduplessis7388
It's the way they did it that was unnecessary, like it's one thing if she was actively trying to keep safe, and away from the edge. But instead they went the ultra dramatic to try to evoke a bigger emotional reaction.
I hated it so much lol. It felt disrespectful lol.
If CS Lewis were here to comment on your comment on Aslan, I think he would say it was important to present Aslan as the same all throughout the series, because Azlan is a parallel for God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit God has always been so it was important for CS Lewis, to present Azlan as the same all throughout the Narnia series to subtly hint at that they do reference him being a little bit older in Prince Caspian, and having more strength once he comes back to life in line, the witch in the wardrobe, but other than that there is no reference to Azlan aging in anyway as far as I can recall
I must correct something: Triton does directly say they are dangerous fish eaters.
And Peter Pan chopped off Hook;s hand.
i thought a crocodile ate it
He fed it to him. @@chesspiece4257
@@chesspiece4257he chopped it off and fed it to the crocodile 🐊
Thank you!!
Ok to be fair, in Wilder's Willy Wonka, Wonka does try to stop the kids from doing stupid things initially, but eventually he just gets tired of them acting up lol. But he says things like, this product isn't ready and then they just do things without asking. It's up to the parents to correct their children, not him. It's supposed to be a lesson for parents AND children. The Johnny Depp movie goes in a weird more cruel direction and kind of ruins the "moral tale" of the whole thing. If we're talking the Depp version I think many of your points are valid, but the Wilder version not so much. He is a recluse, but he closes his doors due to spies messing with his business. Also none of the kids die, and he literally makes chocolate to sell he doesn't hoard it lol. The cool garden/chocolate river are part of the production process. The oompa loompas...yeah valid lol.
But also I agree the new Wonka film shouldn't exist and origin stories like this ruins the magic and mystery of the character.
He isn't really trying to protect the kids though. Even from the start he's mostly just upset they keep messing his stuff up. He becomes indifferent when it only affects the kid and not his operations.
@@ruminationstation4200 He does yell to and warn them though. Neither the kids nor the parents listen. And then he sends the oompa loompas to go get them out of whatever situation they're in. It's a lesson about bad parenting lol
To me, the Cruella movie doesn't feel like it's trying to take place in the same world as 101 Dalmatians it's just using one of the characters to tell a "new" story. People keep writing the movie off by saying "they gave her an origin story where she hates dogs because one of them killed her mother". But neither version of Curella has a particular hatred for dogs, she is just willing to sacrifice a dog (or 100s of them) so she can look fly and stunt on her peers. The Cruella movie is about a woman who loves fashion and is willing to go to great lengths to be successful in the fashion industry. It doesn't contradict the original movie or ruin the character.
But if I compare it to the Malifacent movie (which i hate) they destroy everything that is fun about the villain and the story as a whole. She is just meant to be an incredibly powerful woman/fairy who is also very very petty. I think they could have made a fun movie with that character, instead they changed everything about Malifecent from top to bottom. It doesn't even feel like a children's film. The fact that they tried to put a femenist spin on it makes crazy. The animated movie is (accidentally) one of Disney's most femenist films. The real hero isn't the prince but 3 fat older women. Meanwhile in Malifacent they take a female character who is massively powerful and force her to endure what is essentially a rape allegory. Kinda off topic at the end but that movie makes me mad.
for me, it's almost good that Maleficent changed so much. It so much directly contradicts Sleeping Beauty that it can't plausibly be viewed as being in the same universe at all and so effectively leaves Sleeping Beauty untouched. Cruella can plausibly be viewed as a prequel to 101 Dalmatians, the only thing it contradicts is Anita's race
“Maybe I wanna listen to the original Better than Revenge with the mattress lyric”
SOOOO real
Finally someone else with justified anger at the wrong Chronicles of Narnia book order 😭
babe wake up, new babbity just dropped
You make really good points about how some origin stories ruin the characters we had already known. It's something that's been bothering me for some time and I had never seen anyone talking about it. Also, I like that you brought up the difference between "vilains" and "evil characters", often overlooked by people
I agree with this for the most part I think. giving a character that's supposed to embody a concept a backstory explaining their behavior and beliefs makes them too concrete. the character is supposed to be a metaphor. Maleficent isn't supposed to be a person, she is quite literally supposed to be a dragon and an obstacle to be overcome.
Wonka was really fun, but honestly you could have cut to oompa loompa and changed his name and it could have been an original story
The songs were fun, the plot had some fun ideas, and the main character......did not need to be willy wonka
Matt Lucas as an evil chocolatier made this movie worth it, you cannot change my mind
You're right, I think it would have still been a bit...bland? but still a solid, enjoyable movie
but its prequel movie about willy so ofcpurse he would be the protagonist in this th eon thing it ddint need was so many villains
thanks so much for putting into words exactly what i’ve been thinking since pre-pandemic but never knowing how to articulate. the degradation of villains is such a sad sight to see and i loved your video.
I 100% agree with reading the narnia books on publishing order but specifically on a first read, after that I personally really enjoy reading them in chronological order and I think that reading order does have some value
I saw Wonka with zero expectations and ended up crying twice.
I'm dying to know why your book spines are turned that way
Had to stop watching when you said the Grinch didn't need an origin story. Girl bye 😂 the Grinch with Jim Carrey is a cinematic masterpiece and the world would be a worse place if it never existed.
Banger video!! Very true!! Personally i think villain maturity should depend on like, the situation. I think childrens shows taking place in the real world, in like a school setting really benefit from not having 2 dimensional villains because that encourages empathy, but in a more fantastical setting like fantasy or sci-fi, it doesn’t really do that job as well. Learning that Katie from your class may only be mean to you because shes taking her problems out on you can help develop a child's empathy, but learning that Zakhar the wizard is only trying to take over the world because his wife died doesn’t really offer that same lesson.
Also a good point you brought up, these cartoon villains are usually adults- which is pretty important. Many children will be hurt by adults who were in positions of power over them, so having these unsympathetic adult villains can be cathartic for young kids struggling to understand why they’ve been hurt by someone who was meant to protect them.
Also!! I think mature themes are often handled best in children’s media when there isn’t really a villain. Over the moon is a children’s story about grieving a dead parent, and there's no villain in that movie, which is what makes it so powerful. At the most dramatic point of the movie, Chang'e threatens everyone's safety when she shuts down emotionally from her grief. She isnt a villain, shes not purposely hurting anyone, but her grief is hurting the people around her as much as its hurting herself.
So ig TLDR;
Villains with tragic backstories don't automatically make a story more mature and complicated.
In defense of Wonka, he did employee humans to do the jobs, but then those humans stole his secrets of production and sold them to other chocolate manufacturers.
He tried doing the social thing, and it could have ruined him.
So, he has a very jaded view of the human race, especially human adults.
I'm glad to see someone else remembering this, Wonka gave people their fair chance, and their own greed and selfishness, caused him to close his doors to the public, it'sthe same reason why the kids were put into the situations that they were, Wonka pretty much explains exactly this, he needed to see which, out of any of them could be trusted with the business he cared so much for
I'm taking notes for one of my villains
I did remember that, and was surprised it wasn't worked in -- Wonka doesn't dismiss all of his human employees just because, but because of a feeling of betrayal. I don't think that makes him completely in the right -- either to withdraw his capital from his community, or to solve this problem with the enslavement and deliberate isolation of another race -- but it's a reason that was given in the book, and then in the Wilder movie at least. (I never saw the Depp one.) In a "this is a story for kids" way, this streamlines things to a huge degree -- it's easy to understand a sense of betrayal.
But from an adult perspective, it doesn't truly work -- sure, his business could have taken a hit by his competitors being able to make copies of his recipes. But that's, uh... pretty much the story of every huge company in the world today, isn't it? Coca Cola is huge, and then there are a ton of different competitors to it; some of them have some success (RC Cola) and some have gigantic success (Pepsi), but none of the imitators drove Coke out of business, or even really substantially affected its bottom line. And that's true in industry after industry -- after monopolies are broken, after patents expire, or after various types of copies are backwards-engineered by competitors. Do the copies eat into the profits of the original? Yeah, sure. But we can offer too many examples of that not really hurting the business of the original, which still makes money hand over fist, to muster up that much sympathy for this "Capitalism for Babies" narrative of "Wonka would have been ruined by his competitors stealing his secrets, so he just had no choice but to get rid of all the people, enslave a naive race to replace them, and seal his factor off to the outside world".
Yes, collectively judging and punishing a whole group of people by the acts of some individuals really is the trademark of a good person.
You do realise wonka is an allegorical caricature of those capitalist arguments, and not, like, the victim?
Man everytime I look at your channel and I remember that you haven’t been making videos for like 5 years I’m impressed everytime! You have such a great editing and write your points so articulately like a youtube natural! I’m also embarrassed I didn’t subscribe sooner!
Me: oh yay, i get to take a break from studying my trademark & copyright law coursework to watch a new babbity kate video!
The babbity kate video: SYKE
Willy Wonka is only evil if you eschew the child logic that validates stock villians. To children, WW is not evil. He's only evil when you overthink and apply adult logic, which is something directly criticized in this video.
He's evil in a way a child wouldn't recognize because he's sugar coated and fun. He is evil because he is dangerous to them and they have no idea.
I for sure thought he was scary and untrustworthy as a kid.
this video is a thrilling watch! excellently written and delivered!! I really love the way the arguments flow, it feels like we're in an Essay House with different Thought Rooms and you're giving me an enthusiastic tour. so awesome to see your longer stuff on CZcams!
You make me think about stuff I’d never think deeper about myself. I could listen to you talk for hours
I personally like the explanation of motives, I think humans very often villanise someone without stopping to think about the other perspective. I also don't like characters that are legends. If they are not entirely human then I can't relate, I don't know how they process experiences, I feel like I don't know what to expect and them usually conveniently acting as archetypes is for the integrity of the story not of the character at least that's how I feel. I see character as a person (fictional ofc) not a performance. To me fairytale good and evil is not fun and comfortble. All that rumbling to say that I like the idea of humanising and explaining a character, but I just don't like the execution most of the time, because it feels inorganic or doesn't make sense. Im autistic with very strong desire to understand everything to be clear.
ariel's beginning is the best little mermaid movie. why? not because sebastian sings harry belafonte. not because her sisters get somewhat fleshed out and have actual relationships with ariel and with each other. no. it is the best because: benjamin.
You've absolutely become my favorite video essayist. I love breakdowns of media I haven't engaged with and don't care about. Your analysis is always thoughtful, eloquent, and hilarious
Have no idea how this ended up in my feed but I am so glad it did. Was here for every part of this ride. I think so much of this is explained by thinking that the powers that be have forgotten that children see the world very differently, I think that is a great thing to zero in on with this phenomenon. Maguire's process made a lot of sense for an adult work that was meant as a reply to the original work, it does not work as well for works still at least marginally aimed at children and meant to be a continuous part of the work.
37:57 interesting point! as a european it probably bothers me in a way it doesn't bother other people bc i'm a child of the millenium and was obssessed with the grimm brothers as a kid, but it is weird that disney can just copyright so much of medieval european folklore. it would be like a european film company founded in the 90s having the rights to bigfoot. cinderella is one of my favorite movies ever, but when i think about cinderella i don't think about the disney movie, i think about the perrault fairytale. it's not the end of the world but i do think it's weird disney can just do that
i think its especially weird when a lot of these fairytales are universal, like how there are many different "origins" of beauty and the beast... like, how does disney get to own stuch a universal story???
(EDIT not to say it wouldnt be weird even if it was exclusive to one culture, but owning universal ideas and experiences is so especially strange...)
I think villain origin stories can be good if they are distinctly separated from the original story and preferably target a different audience. My favorite one is Twisted, a musical parody of Aladdin from Jafar's POV. It is very obviously not meant to be the same story, but they do a wonderful job adding to Jafar while pointing out the not great parts of the original movie. It's incredibly entertaining and targets those of us at an age when we start questioning certain morals portrayed in Disney.
Can I just say how much I love your videos? You always come from such a place of kindness and understanding, which is so, so refreshing in the CZcams landscape of today.
I need more video essays 😭 you’re channel doesn’t have enough content
I will say the Cruella movie kind of sidesteps a bit of that - I am a Cruella movie stan, so I'm def biased, but it really felt like the goal wasn't to explain why Cruella became evil, but to just sort of... have fun with the concept in a highly stylized way in a period setting. Like, if you try to draw a line from Cruella to 101 Dalmatians, her character literally doesn't make sense - which I know annoyed some people, but it just sort of gave me heist AU fanfiction vibes, and I was extremely into it.
Also - I think it helps that the Cruella movie definitely isn't intended for children. It's nostalgia bait, definitely, but it's not meant to explain the backstory of Cruella for kids. It's just meant to, idk, play in the space? But overall, I do think you make a really good point.
@@Ladygrev I love your explanation of the movie!! I'm a Cruella stan as well and will definitely argue that it's the best of the Disney remakes- mainly because I agree that trying to draw a line from remake to original never ends up in audience favor since we all have nostalgia goggles on. That being said, I do view some of the other remakes differently. God only know what drugs the writers of The Little Mermaid were on when they decided "Scuttlebutt" was a good idea.
Great essay! I think part of the reason Wicked hits different than some of these other villain prequels is that it casts another character we know well from the source material in the role of villain. In other prequels I've seen, a new villain is invented out of necessity, so that we can root for the protagonist (i.e. Emma Thompson in Cruella). Wicked is the only one I can think of (in my limited viewing) that doesn't invent this necessary villain but instead recontextualizes a character previously positioned as "good" which deepens the theme of good & evil being subjective. Also, I think the Wicked musical, when it came out, didn't give off as obvious a "cash grab' vibe as some of these other prequels do. Maybe because it preceded the rash of villain-prequels we're weary of by now? Or maybe because, back in 2003, its success seemed like less of a sure thing than something like Cruella or even Wonka seems now... Disney properties kind of stay alive over the years, sustaining interest from new generations through home video, merchandising and reboots (i.e. the successful live-action 101 Dalmations films of the 90s), which gave reason to assume a 2020 Cruella prequel would appeal to not only nostalgic adults, but kids. The character of Willy Wonka had also proved to have modern day appeal fairly recently with the Johnny Depp reboot. The freshness of those stories in people's minds, which made Cruella and Wonka seem likely to make money, also made them feel a bit pointless. The OG Wizard of Oz movie's cultural impact seems to have faded a bit more over the generations (at least, before Wicked sparked a renewed interest?) While new generations of kids have continued to watch the movie over the past 70 years, it feels more dated than most older Disney animations feel, there has been generally less merchandising of it targeted to kids, and reboots / reimaginings of the material (prior to Wicked) didn't make a huge cultural impact, which maybe gave Wicked less of that retread / cash grab feel when it hit theaters in 2003? Idk! Regardless, much like you point out about people forgetting the original Baum books and considering the Wizard of Oz movie to be THE Wizard of Oz, it's weird to realize kids today are probably more familiar with Wicked than with the Wizard of Oz movie.
this was such a fun video. i love your energy.
This went so many different directions I could have never expected! Love it!
so excited for this new upload
Haven’t finished watching yet but I love the quote about fairytales. This is why villains are important- The world is a scary place right now and children are absolutely aware of it. Seeing a fairytale as allegory for your own life is very important.
this was an absolutely excellent analysis! i truly didnt know i could be so enthralled in the topic of origin stories (my thoughts on it prior ended at, "thing bad"), but i am so happy i got to hear your thoughts! truly a perfect video essay
So excited for a new video from you! Really enjoyed it as always ❤
On characters getting pointless origins being mainly a children's story thing, I'd cite BBC Sherlock as an example in adult media of a character getting an origin story they shouldn't have
Yes, there are a few video essays on how bad Sherlock is, and the fundamental point people make is that they get the character of Holmes completely wrong.
Holmes isn't a psychopath. He's a man who cares very deeply about his friends, and about the people he meets. He takes cases, not because they're an interesting puzzle, but because he wants to prevent people being hurt, or if they are hurt, to avenge them.
I think Wicked is more a spiritual prequel to 1959's The Wizard of Oz than anything else, just like Wonka is to 1971's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Both use consolidated visual elements in their structures, but that doesn't mean they're all one big universe. Like, Margareth Hamilton's Wicked Witch was a straight-up villain and dies, end of story.
Absolutely BRILLIANT video. Please keep making content about films and literature and stories.
i just enjoy hearing your thoughts and opinions so much, you are a joy to watch and listen to ❤
I don’t think that little mermaid prequel ruins tritons character. I think it’s ok to give him a reason for his prejudice against humans. You’d be surprised how many people think they have good reasons for their hatred of whole groups of people based on certain individuals actions. I don’t think it ruins the end of the original movie. It just means through Eric’s actions of saving him and his daughter he’s learnt not to judge all humans based on what happened to his wife. I actually think this is a pretty good lesson for children. And I do remember being very confused by his actions as a child.
I think the sea witch from The Little Mermaid merits a backstory. NOT URSULA. The witch from the original HCA story. Because she’s not even really a villain in the original story; she tries to dissuade the mermaid from becoming human by adding the drawbacks to the deal (the mermaid giving up her voice, being in pain when she walks, etc). Maybe the sea witch knows something about how the mermaid will be treated on land because she’s experienced it herself. I don’t know; could be an interesting idea for a book.
Also thank you for not trashing my favorite musical of all time, because otherwise I would’ve been quite miffed.
The witch comes off more like she's willing to help the mermaid but also thinks she's stupid for wanting what she wants. Also I've always saw bad side effects of the deal as the natural drawbacks of her magic and not stuff she intentionally added. The only reason the Sea Witch is associated with evil is cause she's a witch and HCAs stories all have heavy Christian undertones, but she doesn't really do anything bad in the story. At the end of the story the sisters give up their hair to the witch in exchange for a dagger that the mermaid can use to kill the prince and become a mermaid again, which to me seems like the witch was somewhat willing to help save the mermaid in the end. I view her more of a neutral figure in the story rather then good/evil tbh.
She never actually gave up her voice in the original story. She knows she can never return to the ocean to see her family, and her feet will hurt and bleed badly. She can talk, though. If she fails to make the prince love her, she loses everything and becomes sea foam. After not stabbing anyone to survive, she becomes a bubble or something similar. It's another sort of tragedy.
@@AnymousScreams You either never read the original story or don't remember it well.
I love your content, your video essays scratch my brain in the best way possible. ❤
I really love the way you constructed this video and every single point you brought up. I found myself agreeing with you immediately on so many of your thoughts, and I wasn't expecting a philosophical discussion on the nature of evil but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you so much for creating such a thoughtful, interesting, and incredible video. This was phenomenal and I would absolutely love to see more of this kind of thing from you if you enjoy making it!
As a Jill Pole stan for over two decades I cheered when you shouted her out. Jill Pole my beloved!!!!!
Didn't Triton tell Ariel to her face that he didn't want her going up to the surface or interacting with humans because he didn't want to see his "youngest daughter nabbed by some fish-eaters hook"? He tells her point blank his reasons and they ARE valid. He knows humans eat sea life and doesn't want Ariel to get eaten, or worse. I don't see how his fear of humans is unreasonable or illogical 🤷🏻♀️
I’m so glad to find your channel, this video is chefs kiss
The video essay I didn’t know I need!! Your channel is such a find!!😍😍😍
because disney depicting evil villiansmotivation just being greed and power would be hypocritical
I actually really enjoyed the Wonka movie. I feel like the marketing for it was garbage and didn't highlight what it was really like. It's one of the best movie musicals I've seen in the last decade. As an origin story...sure, I get that. But if you can disconnect it and consider it more of an AU? Oh my god is it ever fire
Same I loved it it was fun and also wrote by the people who made goasts
@Liz-ch8je not to mention the cast was really diverse in a way that felt organic and relevant
Further into the video now - I honestly think the story still makes sense. It makes the later entry even sadder, because it shows how far he's fallen. He is a man who has forgotten his roots and fallen pray to capitalist propaganda. And it demonstrates that yes - very human people can become evil 🤷♀️ I truly believe his love for his art would drive him to that point later in life if he isn't careful about his priorities
@@MewVenus yes I completely agree
@@MewVenus yes exactly
you’re so right and put everything i’ve been thinking about into words thank u i love ur vids
you have a passionate charisma that animates the way you talk.
I opened this video ready to rush to Wicked’s defense and also because I had the same issues with Wonka and Cruella as concepts - one thing that really grinds my gears is when they create origin stories that try to make the villain into a misunderstood girlboss even though their actions were evil
Cruella isn’t supposed to be a prequel to the original 101 Dalmatians film though. It’s a separate continuity from that. Cruella in the movie isn’t supposed to be evil in that universe
Ooh that Narnia reading order rant scratched an itch.
This was my intro to your channel, and I loved listening to your points and tangents as I cut my quilting pattern out. Like a friend in my kitchen I could occasionally look up at and say “mhm” with pins in my mouth.
you are so captivating and fun to watch! immediately subscribed :D