Disney Prepping Live Action "Cruella de Vil" Film

[Sawyer]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/disney-preps-live-action-cruella-639169

Disney Preps Live-Action Cruella de Vil Film (Exclusive)
1:16 PM PDT 9/30/2013 by Borys Kit

UPDATED: The writer for the studio's live-action "Cinderella" has been hired to pen the script for what is being titled "Cruella."

After making a movie centered on Maleficent, the villainess from Sleeping Beauty, Disney is setting its sights on another bad lady: Cruella de Vil.

Aline Brosh McKenna has been hired to pen Cruella, which will bring the dog-fur-loving fashionista from 101 Dalmations into a live-action feature to be produced by Andrew Gunn, who produced Sky High and Bedtime Stories for the studio.

De Vil first appeared in Dodie Smith's 1956 novel The Hundred and One Dalmatians but became a Disney icon with the 1961 animated movie. And it's not the character's first incarnation in a live-action feature. Glenn Close memorably played the character in 1996's 101 Dalmatians and the 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians.

Sadly, the studio is keeping its latest take on the character locked in the dog pound.

Cruella would be Disney's latest live-action take on one of its classic animated films. In addition to Alice and Maleficent, Disney is making Cinderella, which just began principal photography with Kenneth Branagh in the director's chair.

McKenna already worked for Disney by penning the Cinderella script. The screenwriter, who may be best-known for adapting The Devil Wears Prada, also worked on Annie, which is now casting.

She is repped by CAA.

Umm... been there, done that? Seriously, Disney, your memory can't be that short. Glenn Close was great.

 

[Rocketman]

They're doing this instead of Lone Ranger 2? Are they trying to make money or something?

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm really unsure about this film. The character is to be hated and rightfully so. With Maleficent, there's at least a 'Wicked' thing going on and enough room to maneuver around in to tell it. But, how can you ever make a film with a protagonist who wants to kill dogs to wear their fur? Basically, what's the story there? And it sounds odd for Disney making a film about a character everyone will hate and fear. So, kinda confused... if this wasn't Disney - okay Hannibal, and Bates Motel, and etc. But, since it's Disney? Kinda confused on what they're going for here because I don't see how it wouldn't be a horror film that would scare many children since it's now about her.

 

[Lencho01]

I assume this'll be the origin story many have been waiting years for.

 

[Lord]

Last actress was great, there's no purpose in revisiting this story when her main goal isn't even in play. Why don't they just make the 103 Dalmations?

 

[Ultimatehero]

CLASSIC TRAILER GUY:
Welcome to this heart warming story about a woman that wanted to design fashionable clothing who was driven dog-mad by some dogs who just wanted to have some fun ruining her life and her one great chance for success. Witness the start of her plans for vengeance on puppies everywhere, Cruella de Vil. A film the whole family can enjoy.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

Seems like it'd be wiser to wait and see how Maleficent does first, but what do I know?

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I just can't wait to see Ursula's rise to villainy in the eventual origin movie after this one.

 

[SuperT]

Seems like it'd be wiser to wait and see how Maleficent does first, but what do I know?

I guess it shows that Disney is pretty confident in it's success?

 

[Donnie Darko]

If they are going to give us villain-centric movies, give us GASTON already!

I'm really unsure about this film. The character is to be hated and rightfully so. With Maleficent, there's at least a 'Wicked' thing going on and enough room to maneuver around in to tell it. But, how can you ever make a film with a protagonist who wants to kill dogs to wear their fur? Basically, what's the story there? And it sounds odd for Disney making a film about a character everyone will hate and fear. So, kinda confused... if this wasn't Disney - okay Hannibal, and Bates Motel, and etc. But, since it's Disney? Kinda confused on what they're going for here because I don't see how it wouldn't be a horror film that would scare many children since it's now about her.

I think this one will actually be a sequel that is a story of her redemption. After being paying her debt to society for her actions against the dogs in the original film, she goes on to have a successful career as the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles.

 

[jonathancrane]

Why?

 

[Darkness Falls]

not a fan of the idea but it could work i guess
which villain will be next

 

[Sawyer]

Frollo, *****!

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I guess it shows that Disney is pretty confident in it's success?

Or desperate for franchises. I guess every studio is.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The thing is there's plenty of other villains you could easily and better change the story of.

HOOK - Peter Pan is the bad guy and they have a whole history that we don't know about, there is a script like this floating around Hollywood which is exceptionally good.

JAFAR - perhaps Jasmine actually loved him and he rightfully gained what he had always wanted, only for a street urchin to con his way into stealing everything away from him.

These characters actually have stories and motives that you can change. Cruella while a great villain, is really one-dimensional and remembered because of how scary she is. She has no real motive outside of killing puppies for fur coats - which unlike Hook and Jafar and Maleficent is impossible to get behind.

Not to mention how cool would it be to see a LIVE ACTION Peter Pan and Aladdin and Little Mermaid? These stories have a much greater chance at being good and box office draws.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

lol, Jasmine never loved Jafar. I don't see how anyone can spin that one. Plus, that would make Aladdin look like quite the ass. Interesting ideas, though.

 

[Ultimatehero]

In the Disney version... those who have read Maleficent will see the kind of changes that can be made -- that aren't originally there -- to make the villain appears like a hero and prior heroes come off as jerks. In Maleficent the fairies are kinda sadistic and the parents are b-tards lol. So, it would actually be taking the same route that they went with in Maleficent. Just Jasmine and Aladdin becoming the jerks - Aladdin a street rat who steals everything he wants in an unfair way and Jasmine the girl who goes to whoever is powerful. Not the Disney version, but yet again the same level of changes in Maleficent to skew it off balance.

 

[rayc1971]

this will be the origin story do we really need it

 

[Silvermoth]

I would rather an origin story of the genie from Aladdin

 

[Zant]

This needs a box office draw like Bullock, Diaz or Streep.

 

[Lord]

Or desperate for franchises. I guess every studio is.

They have Star Wars, every single Marvel Studios property, Indiana Jones, Finding Nemo, Cars, whatever other franchise Pixar can give them, every Disney classic ever, and every Disney character and the freaking Pirates of the Caribbean. If anything they have too many franchises, but i guess adapting Lone Ranger and John Carter turned them off of exploring new franchises.

The thing is there's plenty of other villains you could easily and better change the story of.

HOOK - Peter Pan is the bad guy and they have a whole history that we don't know about, there is a script like this floating around Hollywood which is exceptionally good.

JAFAR - perhaps Jasmine actually loved him and he rightfully gained what he had always wanted, only for a street urchin to con his way into stealing everything away from him.

These characters actually have stories and motives that you can change. Cruella while a great villain, is really one-dimensional and remembered because of how scary she is. She has no real motive outside of killing puppies for fur coats - which unlike Hook and Jafar and Maleficent is impossible to get behind.

Not to mention how cool would it be to see a LIVE ACTION Peter Pan and Aladdin and Little Mermaid? These stories have a much greater chance at being good and box office draws.

Hook was already made, by none other than Steven Spielberg:



And a few years ago there was also a live action Peter Pan movie

If they are going to give us villain-centric movies, give us GASTON already!




I think this one will actually be a sequel that is a story of her redemption. After being paying her debt to society for her actions against the dogs in the original film, she goes on to have a successful career as the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles.

There was a film about that too, in 102 Dalmationsback in 2000, it wasn't as successful as the 101 Dalmations remake but it performed well. Still remember when toys about that film were coming out on Mc Donalds t:

 

[Quasimod0]

Was anyone clamoring for this? Lol

 

[Duke]

Total waste of time from Disney.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I need to see a Lion King prequel about Mufasa and Scar as children before anything. Call it The Lion Prince. Seriously, I'd love that.

 

[Ultimatehero]

NOT that Hook - that was about Peter Pan being older. I'm talking about Hook's origin story that paints Peter as the bad guy. Very similarly to a script that I think Channing Tatum owns right now which he purchased from the blacklist a couple of years back.

Peter Pan in the same sensibilities as 'Snow White and the Huntsman.' Imagine Ridley Scott making a Peter Pan movie and you can get a sense of what can still be done with it.

And the Genie could definitely work.

With plenty of actual areas to discover -- why Cruella? As said, it just seems so odd since there are choices out there for movies that starting out already have potential to be good.