- This topic has 32 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We don’t know, if Cruella was born evil, just that she started to do evil things at an early age. With her we got kinda the classical fictional crazy psychopath, though a lack of empathy doesn’t turn someone automatically into a crazy serialkiller. Isolating and locking her up might have been not a good choice to change her to the better. But maybe there was no way to ever change her to the better. We can’t tell. As Cruella herself said to the Author, she has no answer to the why, she just already as little girl wondered, why no just splash into the dark and have fun instead of struggling against being drawn into it.
It’s not about evil being born or not in my eyes, it’s more that we sometimes just can’t explain why people do the things they do. No science, and certainly not magic, can give all the answers. As I don’t think that all what we do and how we behave is just nurture I doubt it’s all nature, let alone some higher power or fate.
But of course could now say, finally the writers of the show gave their mantra of “evil isn’t born it’s made” the boot. They somewhat did that already IMO with Zelena, despite the weak attempt of a sob story for her. Not sure if the writers though realized that they did that.
And it’s ironic that of all villains the villain Emma kills now is the one with no sob victim backstory (aside of Cruella she sort of killed cursed Dragon-Maleficent and nearly killed Pan). How silly is that?! Particular seeing that bringing Emma to kill Cruella was made sound like something Rumple planned to push her over the brink and get her closer to become dark. Ridiculous. Anyone around who thinks Emma burdened herself with an inexcusable guilt by killing Cruella while convinced she had to defend the live of her son? Even if Cruella was not able to take the live of another, she was not defenseless and sure no innocent bystander, she was threatening Henry. These writer so suck at writing gray.
If they had it made ambiguous. Either they should not have used Cruella being killed now for this looming and likely stupid Emma-turning-probably-dark plot, or they should have given Cruella a sob victim story. Let her be a wronged child with some well meaning but still rather heartless, rigorous mother (I had rigid Prussian culture informed grandmothers, I know something about that), which somehow could have made her obsessed to safe every child in a weird way from seemingly bad mothers.
So, while this was a nice change to the repetitive weak sob story they’ve given particular the female villains on this show so far, it was likely an idiotic idea in the bigger story arc at this point.
[adrotate group="5"]¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I found this tale rater twisted, though sadly, not untrue to real life. While every child may be born with a blank slate (in so far as that child has yet to commit any crime), that doesn’t mean people aren’t born with different proclivities for disease, which includes mental illness. Psychopathy is a disease of the mind, which some children may just be born with a very high proclivity for; it doesn’t mean there is no self-responsibility for one’s actions, but these people need to be identified early on and treated so that their proclivity doesn’t grow into a full-scale threat to others.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
It goes against the “Evil wasn’t born, it’s made.”
I think that’s what I liked about it, actually. It was finally something different from the same tired story.
I don’t think it does go against “Evil isn’t born, it’s made.” Cruella had that one line about when she was a little girl, deciding to “Splash around in the darkness.” To me, this means she made a choice to go dark, grooming herself to become darker. She made herself dark by her own choices.
a little girl probably doesn’t even know how to recognise darkness though. and she hasn’t really been out enough, living in a fairly sheltered place, to experience darkness and no what it is.
Like i said this concept could have worked FOR ANOTHER CHARACTER. evil in the real world most often comes from men in suits, not quirky, crazy colourful types. it’d be nice to have a villain who’s “just evil” but wasn’t someone like Cruella.
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
We don’t know, if Cruella was born evil, just that she started to do evil things at an early age. With her we got kinda the classical fictional crazy psychopath, though a lack of empathy doesn’t turn someone automatically into a crazy serialkiller. Isolating and locking her up might have been not a good choice to change her to the better. But maybe there was no way to ever change her to the better. We can’t tell. As Cruella herself said to the Author, she has no answer to the why, she just already as little girl wondered, why no just splash into the dark and have fun instead of struggling against being drawn into it. It’s not about evil being born or not in my eyes, it’s more that we sometimes just can’t explain why people do the things they do. No science, and certainly not magic, can give all the answers. As I don’t think that all what we do and how we behave is just nurture I doubt it’s all nature, let alone some higher power or fate. But of course could now say, finally the writers of the show gave their mantra of “evil isn’t born it’s made” the boot. They somewhat did that already IMO with Zelena, despite the weak attempt of a sob story for her. Not sure if the writers though realized that they did that. And it’s ironic that of all villains the villain Emma kills now is the one with no sob victim backstory (aside of Cruella she sort of killed cursed Dragon-Maleficent and nearly killed Pan). How silly is that?! Particular seeing that bringing Emma to kill Cruella was made sound like something Rumple planned to push her over the brink and get her closer to become dark. Ridiculous. Anyone around who thinks Emma burdened herself with an inexcusable guilt by killing Cruella while convinced she had to defend the live of her son? Even if Cruella was not able to take the live of another, she was not defenseless and sure no innocent bystander, she was threatening Henry. These writer so suck at writing gray. If they had it made ambiguous. Either they should not have used Cruella being killed now for this looming and likely stupid Emma-turning-probably-dark plot, or they should have given Cruella a sob victim story. Let her be a wronged child with some well meaning but still rather heartless, rigorous mother (I had rigid Prussian culture informed grandmothers, I know something about that), which somehow could have made her obsessed to safe every child in a weird way from seemingly bad mothers. So, while this was a nice change to the repetitive weak sob story they’ve given particular the female villains on this show so far, it was likely an idiotic idea in the bigger story arc at this point.
yep. it also didn’t make much sense with the Cruella we’ve been presented with thus far.
why didn’t the Chernobog go after her? why maleficent?
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
So, while this was a nice change to the repetitive weak sob story they’ve given particular the female villains on this show so far, it was likely an idiotic idea in the bigger story arc at this point.
The writers seem pretty liberal with the sob stories, not just the females.
And I just don’t see the point in killing Cruella still…to promote Emma as evil, how when she was defending her son, something any sane right minded mother would have done. She did good even giving Cruella a choice to let Henry go!
I just hate Cruella’s dead….like…couldn’t they have just sent her to Regina’s Mental Asylum in Storybrooke…give her Sidney or Belle’s old room!
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
To be fair, Cruella may have been born with a disorder but her mother did her no favors by the way she raised her. Terrorize with dogs? REALLY? How are you not going to make an already messed up child more messed up with that?
She reminds me a bit of the girl in the “Child of Rage” documentary–incredibly sociopathic and disturbed child from really young (however, the girl in the documentary went through some extremely traumatic events like rape, etc). But through lots of therapy and help, the child in the documentary actually grew up to be a pretty well-adjusted person as an adult…
That being said, I don’t understand how this is supposed to turn Emma dark. She didn’t know Cruella was defenseless, and her actions were out of love for her own child. I don’t see that as dark at all.
Funny thing is that Gotham coincidentally had a similar story in its 18th episode, while this is OUAT’s 18th episode of the Season too.
While Gordon is investigating Commissioner Loeb, they find his daughter Miriam kept away in an attic. At first they suspect that Loeb killed his own wife, but it turns out that Miriam had killed her, and Loeb has been trying to keep it under wraps to protect his daughter this entire time.
This is one of the best episode so far! Cruella is that Criminal Minds/SVU psychopathic serial killer vibe.
The topic ‘Cruella: Twisted Backstory’ is closed to new replies.