|
Post by xardas on Jun 16, 2010 21:22:22 GMT -5
Perhaps the biggest complaint that people have about the series is the amount of creative license that it employed, particularly when it comes to Cruella De Vil and her grand objective to steal a farm. Frankly, I’ve never been that much of a fan of the books and movies so the changes never bothered me, but a lot of people cite these differences in their rejection of the series. I assume that most people on here are fans of the movies as well, so did the changes made for the sake of the series bother you?
|
|
|
Post by Two-Tone on Jun 16, 2010 23:44:06 GMT -5
well not really, besides I imagine they had Cruella try to steal the farm instead of trying to kill the puppies to make them into a furcoat which would probably upset the kids watching
|
|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Jun 17, 2010 0:02:06 GMT -5
By the time the show rolled around it had become so politically incorrect to wear fur that really they had to change that.
The biggest thing that threw me about the series was the fact that Pongo and Perdita weren't just not the stars like in the movie but that they were barely in it at all. That shocked me as a kid. Patch being mostly absence was also quite noticeable, to be honest I thought the pup in the rope collar was nameless and only realized that was Patch watching a rerun years later on Toon Disney.
The setting one also just felt weird. Moving it from a city to the country was a natural progress, both films hinted at that and the live-action film even showed it, but the fact that the show was set in the United States seemingly for no reason was really unusual. To be honest it took me about half a season to figure out it was the US (It wasn't Lucky was rattling off about apple pie in a patriotic sense in one episode that I figured that out). The English setting just seemed like a piece of 101 that you needed to make it 101 but I guess they wanted to do things a little different.
|
|
|
Post by xardas on Jun 17, 2010 0:06:30 GMT -5
well not really, besides I imagine they had Cruella try to steal the farm instead of trying to kill the puppies to make them into a furcoat which would probably upset the kids watching To some people that merely makes it worse. I know that the writers hung a lampshade on it in one episode when they had Cruella comment on the political incorrectness of doing such a thing, albeit with cats, but they took a memorable villain that many people liked and turned her into a shadow of her former self. I have to wonder if they could have come up with a more fitting theme to the series than stealing the farm. There’s also the issues with the continuity. The Dalmatians clearly distrust and hate Cruella, especially Pongo and Perdita, which stands to reason if she did what we all know her for. However, if she did that, why is Anita so trusting of her and why does she continue to work for her? Has it ever even been explicitly stated in the series’ canon that Cruella tried to capture and kill the pups for their coats? Perhaps the series takes place in some alternate universe where that never happened or something. Either way, the series has certainly made full use of creative license and a lot of people think it’s disrespectful to the source because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Jun 17, 2010 0:14:19 GMT -5
Well they probably changed the fur coat thing to stealing the farm because they didn't want to scare the kids :/ that's why a lot of stuff is changed... 'to not scare the kids' heh.
Though for me, I like both the movies and the series.
Plus when I watched the series when I was younger I was really confused, not knowing who the heck Cadpig was (name not mentioned in movie), where was Patch, and why Pongo and Perdita barely did anything.
As for the creative liscence thing... I'm fairly neutral on that. Mostly because I don't know entirely what it is.
|
|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Jun 17, 2010 0:26:25 GMT -5
I think the show maybe mentioned all of ONCE the plot of the movie. In the episode where Cruella signs the pups to do a show based of Roger's recording of them remixed into music, Spot of all animals mentions it as a reason they shouldn't trust Cruella and go along her ideas for a show.
It's possible Roger and Anita don't know Cruella did it, in the original animated movie they never find out it was Cruella who did it (although the live-action films and 101D2 had them knowing).
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Jun 17, 2010 2:05:05 GMT -5
To tell the truth it's difficult to make a living off your art as Anita does. And the Americanization never once bothered me.
I had a thought once on why Pongo and Perdita don't do much of anything over the course of the series. This post was made by me on Perdita's thread:
As I once stated, I would have loved seeing more exposure of the other characters alongside the four Main Pups. However, there would be two exceptions.
This is not saying I don't like them, but I honestly think it would have been best that Pongo and Perdita maintain background roles for the series.
Why, you ask? Well, the point of the series is to focus on the puppies. They would still hold their appeal, and subliminally send kids good messages. There is a reason why people still care about characters like Tom Sawyer and Nancy Drew: the fact that they are literary figures in that while they are children, for the most part, you don't really see their parents all the time. Everything the kids do, they have to learn about it themselves, from their actions and the characters they encounter. For the most part, whatever Lucky, Cadpig, Rolly and Spot did, they would eventually learn from their actions by the end of the episode. The fact they would do as such without their parents' endless preaching would send kids the message of why it's important to think for yourself.
Now, imagine Pongo and Perdita had a prominent role in 101 Dalmatians: the Series. Just before a beatdown is about to come up, suddenly Mom and Dad bolt in and give a lecture on why things should be done in a certain way. Then the beatdown is aborted and the kids take the advice of their parents.
That's just too much like it is in real life and the kids don't learn for themselves; why should they? After all, Mom and Dad are here and they will always jump in and spell out the message. Suddenly this isn't Huckleberry Finn as much as it is The Berenstein Bears.
Again, just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Jun 17, 2010 5:20:17 GMT -5
I was okay with the, Alterations they made to the, Series. X3
I can understand on, Cruella wishing to steal the, Farm instead of wishing a coat, because of the, Audience not being distrubed, however along with her probably being restrcited from doing so (E.G. "Patchs London Adventure"). Still, Even, Cadpig says "It's a simple variation on her constant theme to steal the, Farm." You got to give them, Credit if they are able to joke about their premise plans. X3
With the sense of having it in, America, I can guess they tried that because since, America is larger than the, UK along with having much more there. Examples like, Mountains, Deserts, Etc. If it was set in, UK, Roger & Pongo would probably be driving for days to get to a mountain region in "Snow Bounders".
Or course, They also are able to mix both, "Animated" & "Live Action" items within the, Series. One case obviously is, Anita's job at the, "House Of Devil" and, Rogers game programming. However, Animate Homages such as, Lucky saying "This seems Very Familiar..." when covered in, Soot or, In "Smoke Detectors", Both, Lucky & Anita mention, Roger smoking his pipe, again, a Homage to the, "Animated Film" Roger. X3 So, You can consider the, Series to be a canon between both, "Animated" & "Live Action" Adaptations. X3
With, Cadpig being in the, Series however not in, Films (Though, I believe, Penny is meant to be, Cadpig in the, Films. X3) At least, Disney were able to give, Homage to the, Original novel it was based on. So, Credit is needed at those points as well. X3
However, I Love both, "101 Dalmatians" Films & Series in any form. I can sense the plausible continuity within the piece if you don't focus much on, Location and I say you can see how it can work. X3 At least it's more continuity plausible than that, Other series, Disney based from a movie. >.>
|
|
|
Post by Cuddly Dearly on Jun 17, 2010 11:46:05 GMT -5
the amount of creative license that it employed sorry, could someone please explain it to me, what does it mean "to employ a creative license"?
|
|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Jun 17, 2010 12:31:19 GMT -5
Basically it means that when you adapt or remake a book/movie/tv series "creative license" refers to the changes you make to it. For instance when Disney made the original 101 movie in 1961 they combined the characters of Missus and Perdita by giving Perdy Missus' background and completely removing the storyline of the book's Perdita including her original mate Prince.
|
|
|
Post by Two-Tone on Jun 17, 2010 12:55:13 GMT -5
Also Bab you forgot there was another homage to Dodie Smith's novel
Patch's series look was a homage to Dodie's description of Patch in the novel
|
|
|
Post by Cuddly Dearly on Jun 17, 2010 13:16:38 GMT -5
thanks for explanation contradictions are the only thing I don't like about 101D. They make you unable to put all the parts (movies, books, games, series) together and get a full story. I would mention these contradictions: - London/Grutley (UK/USA) - Cruella's punishment (if in 101D the movie, Cruella went to the jail, she should be imprisoned during the series. Or how do you explain that she is getting OUT of prison in "102 Dalmatians", when Dearly's puppies are grown up?) - the novel claims that Cruella's husband took De Vil surname, because Cruella was the last one from De Vil family, but here we also have P.H., Ivy, Cecil B and Malevola. - different age of animated and live-action Cruella (remember that the novel and 1961 movie say that Cruella was Anita's schoolmate, but in the live action movie she looks much older than Anita) - the location of Dearly Farm (Hell Hall in the novel, a house next to the Hell Hall in the series, a farm in Devon in "Patch's London Adventure")
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Jun 17, 2010 13:27:49 GMT -5
On TV Tropes, the part about the animated movie has trope called "Adaptation Decay" which said this:
Some extra characters from the original are not in the movie, such as Cruella's husband and cat. Not to mention the female lead (Missis in the original) is given the name of a secondary adult female Dalmatian, Perdita, and Saul's name was changed to Horace.
I have added this onto it:
At the same time, there were four characterized puppies in the book: three boys, Lucky, Patch and Roly-Poly, and one girl puppy named "the Cadpig". In the book, Lucky was a born leader, Patch was much larger in size and was very protective of the Cadpig (named because it refers to the runt of a litter of pigs), who was the one that nearly died in childbirth and loves television. In the movie, Patch is basically Lucky's character, Roly-Poly is now called Rolly, and Lucky is cast in the role of the Cadpig, in the sense he is the one that almost died in childbirth, is refered to as the runt and loves television. The Cadpig does not physically appear in the movie, although the lone characterized female Dalmatian puppy named Penny is likely an Expy of her, probably because the writers did not have the screentime necessary to establish why she would have such an odd name. On the other hand, the puppies are all characterized like their book counterparts in the TV series.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Jun 17, 2010 13:31:44 GMT -5
I did notice the strong difference you pointed out, Huntsman, but it didn't bother me at all. I loved the series for what it is. Thankfully, I was still a kid when it came out, so I viewed it as a whole new experience rather than compare it to the movie.
|
|