MovieChat Forums > 101 Dalmatians: The Series (1997) Discussion > rebuttal for SSJAniFan

rebuttal for SSJAniFan

posted 20 years ago by tweiss1981
7 replies | jump to latest

Upon reading SSJAniFan's scathing review, I am writing this as a possible rebuttal due to the fact it is completely unevenhanded.

Summary: "One of the darkest days in Disney's history."

First, this statement is false. The Disney company had some low points, namely the 1940s (this is due to the Second World War), the late 1960s (the time Walt Disney died), and the mid 1980s (the animation industry was in a slump), but the late 1990s were not a dark time for Disney. This is coming from a Disney lover, so I am aware of the true dark times for the company.

"This is one of the worst cartoons, let alone tv shows, in existence."

No, you're quite wrong. If this show truly IS one of the worst, I don't know why the Academy nominated it for a Daytime Emmy for "Outstanding Children's Program" in 1997-1998. Mind you...saying "Worst Show Ever" doesn't have the same impact after the 20th time you say it.

"I thought the 1996 piece of dog crap that came before was bad enough, but this is pure torture."

Sorry, but in some ways, the 1996 live-action movie managed to outdo the 1961 animated movie. Maybe the original animated movie was the superior version, but that's still light praise, considering from the late 1950s until his unfortunate death in 1966, Disney himself was more interested in designing California's Disneyland theme park than in his movies. The 1996 live-action movie managed to take a classic story, reasonably contemporize it, and improve on some pieces that the '61 movie failed in (Glenn Close made a more villainous Cruella). And in other ways, this show actually does more justice to Dodie Smith's book than all four of the movies (101 Dalmatians (1961), 101 Dalmatians (1996), 102 Dalmatians (2000) and 101 Dalmatians 2: Patch's London Adventure (2003)).

"The huge cast of dalmatians is taken out of the picture, including the parents, Pongo and Perdita..."

You do realize that in the movies, a LARGE number of those dalmatians went undeveloped, right? They're still in the picture. Watch a few more of the episodes. Pongo and Perdy are still there, too. But c'mon, one main reason we all love 101 Dalmatians is the cute li'l puppies, right? Why don't you want to see Cruella kill them all to make a fur coat? Because killing things you think are cute is wrong. It's like killing kittens or bunnies or toddlers. You just can't do it. Also, this is a show about the developed puppies, Pongo and Perdy would be support characters in their show.

"...and in the lead we have: Lucky, the only puppy who appeared in both the excellent animated film and the horrible live action film, Rolly, who also appeared in the animated flick, Cadpig, a character who didn't appear in either Disney film, but was featured in the original novel..."

This show does Lucky much more justice. He was devoid of personality in the movies (remember how he was supposed to be the TV-crazy pup in the film?) The only hints we got are that he'd simply stare at the box, but say close to nothing. In "Patch's London Adventure", he had white ears and couldn't tell a Thunderbolt episode apart without aid from Patch (I repeat, Patch is SUPPOSED to be large, like his character in this show!). Rolly? No comment. He seems pretty consistent. And Cadpig...C'MON, she's more than enough reason to love this show! Cadpig is often credited for being amongst Kath Soucie's best voicework. Anyone familiar with the book will tell you Cadpig is the TRUE runt. Not Patch, not Lucky, Cadpig is the true runt. Forget Penny (the fairly undeveloped girl pup from the 1961 movie), Cadpig is the REAL puppy girl.

"...and...... Spot the chicken. A $$^$#@^%%$^ CHICKEN!!!???? WHAT WAS DISNEY THINKING!? Spot is one of the stupidest characters in Disney's existence, a character who is entirely worthless and adds nothing to the series."

Hey, I'll let you freely bash Lt. Pug (I don't like him for the same reason I prefer to skip over the Calvin and Hobbes "Spaceman Spiff" strips in the books...I like the pups just being puppies) but DON'T knock on Spot. Spot is funny. She's the comic sidekick to the pups. Sure, I'd rather she, like Rolly, play support (Cadpig and Lucky are who I find more interesting), but we all need a character "different" from the leads. Diversity is a good tool to use.

"Even worse, the other three characters, as well as Cruella, Jasper, and Horace, are horribly one-dimensional, lacking any sort of real personality that makes you care for them, unlike so many of Disney's other shows."

A lot of critics will tell you about various films' one-dimensional characters. Also, exactly WHICH of Disney's other shows? Don't tell me you watched "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", and "Aladdin" and thought their stories were completely and totally different, because they simply are not. Besides, Cruella and the Baddun bros. got plenty of development in the movies. You know who they are. Why redevelop them all over again? Besides, even Cruella gets to be funny, and I do enjoy a villain who has a sense of humor. Remember how even Shredder could be funny in the 1988 Ninja Turtles cartoon (I find the 1988 original to be superior to the 2003 remake)? Where would Austin Powers be without Dr. Evil?

"Add in really bad animation, as well as a bad music track, and you have Disney's worse cartoon series ever(with the exception of Teacher's Pet and Lloyd in Space)."

The art style ADDS to the offbeat fun of the show. It doesn't use the same 'rounded edge' style that the movie uses. But guess what? I like it. The music is fine, I like the theme tune. Disney's "worse" cartoon series ever (I HOPE that was a careless spelling goof?)? What about Goof Troop? Would you follow a great superhero spoof like Darkwing Duck with an animated sitcom? At least I wouldn't. Not too fond of "Bonkers" (no comment) or the "Aladdin" cartoon either (I thought Aladdin and Jasmine would have gotten married at the end of the FIRST movie). That Aladdin cartoon was obscenely dull and generic. Teacher's Pet and Lloyd in Space? I think you sunk your own argument there. Here's a refuting quote on such mindless bashing: "Well, that's a very entertaining story, but unfortunately REAL detectives have to worry about that LITTLE thing called...EVIDENCE." --Detective Lois Einhorn, "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective".

"BOTTOM LINE: This puppy really needed to be put to sleep, and I'd administer the fatal shot myself."

You take one first...lol

I didn't like the idea of the classic movie turned into a show at first, either. But after a while, this show started growing on me to the point of wanting all the different episodes on tape (DVDs and hopefully new material, please!). This rebuttal is not meant to be "review-bashing"; I felt his review to be strictly "bandwagon" (I hope you know that this ain't your father's Disney, and sometimes that's a GOOD thing) and I was prompted to write it because I found no credible examples of how or why this show is so terrible, at least to him. I am aware that no show is perfect, but when an otherwise excellent live-action update is considered to be a "piece of dog crap" and one character is described as a "$$^$#@^%%$^" chicken, I just couldn't take it seriously. This particular show has taught me a LOT about the original book, and today, I can't watch the original animated film in the same light anymore. I still like it, but I can't help but occasionally draw some comparisons. "101D: the Series" really is one of the best late 1990s toons, and one of the best movie-based cartoons (after "Aladdin", "Timon and Pumbaa", "The Mighty Ducks", "Hercules", and "Buzz Lightyear of Star Command", this show is a warm welcome!). I love the "Dalmatians" franchaise, but this show is now my prefered 101 Dalmatians medium. Bravo, Disney!

"And what did our horoscope predict today, Rolly? *cute blinks* That it's a good day to be *gains bloodshot eyes and razorlike teeth* RUDE?!?!?!"
--Cadpig, gotta love her, "101 Dalmatians: the Series". :)

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tweiss1981 19 years ago

Geez, this is what I get for defending a show I enjoy?

"If SSJAniFan considers this series to have been one of the "darkest days in Disney's history", then that's up to them."

Maybe, but the true dark times that I state can be supported. Don't forget, the guys at Disney gave us some pretty amazing products during the late '90s. Not only the late '90s Dalmatians products, but also movies like "Mulan", "Tarzan", another look into the Lion King world (Lion King 2: Simba's Pride), not to mention the grand opening of Disney's Animal Kingdom in Florida. Maybe not everyone was totally psyched about "Hercules", but that wasn't a very good movie anyway.

"I happen to share this view - as a whole, Disney TV spin-offs from their successful movies have generally been bad or distinctly inferior."

Not so...there HAVE been good series, such as "The Little Mermaid", "The Legend of Tarzan", "Lilo and Stitch: the Series", of course, "101 Dalmatians: the Series", and (to a lesser extent) "The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa." Hell, I actually think many of their old Disney Afternoon series have more possiblities to achieve greatness than the movies!

"I loved the original Dodie Smith novel and the 1961 movie, but I hated the live action films and this TV series."

Hey, I happen to have grown up with the original animated movie and while I loved it before, I saw the live-action remake and this show and thought they both put the original to shame.

"I liked Cadpig as Smith characterised her in the novels, but here she was an annoying, repulsive little puppy who really had no clue about psychology yet felt the need to drone on about it at length - maybe the writers thought this would be funny, but it only irked me and seemed like an insult to the mental health profession."

And yet...Cadpig is quite a popular character among the fans. Need proof? Here's a link (http://www.megaone.com/toons/special.html) As a hopeless Cadpig fanboy, she's one of the best reasons for the show. She gets the best lines, and I love her metaphysical metaphors to console her friends. I think she's adorable, too!

"Also, if it did do the original novels justice then WHY OH WHY did they completely Americanise it????? Smith set the novel in the UK, and if the people who made the show had respect for the source material, they would've kept it that way."

Well, have you seen Warner Brothers' "The Iron Giant"? Ted Hughes' book was set in England, but the Warner Brothers movie was set in Maine. What's wrong with being American? You're talking to one. "The Iron Giant" is pretty much classified as a modern day classic, and has greater longetivity than other movies people were raving about in 1999 (The same cannot be said for Artisan's overhyped "The Blair Witch Project" and Disney's Happy Meal fiasco "Inspector Gadget"). "101D: the Series" is awesome in its own merits.

"This show took the focus off her important characters like Pongo, Perditta and the humans and layered it on a load of new, incidental characters and pre-existing characters who were never meant to be expanded on in this way in the first place."

...In your opinion, at least. This is a show where the focus is on the pups. If you were to ask 101 Dalmatians fans their reasons for loving the franchise, chances are they'll list the puppies. I am aware that Pongo was Pongo, but his wife's name was 'Missus'; 'Perdita' was the pups' foster mom who the Dearlys took to help nurse them, and Cruella DID have a pet cat in the book. On top of that, she was married. I felt Roger and Anita were more compelling in the remake and Disney seems to be aware that Glenn Close's Cruella DeVil was stronger. Hell, the characters pretty much ARE much stronger in this series. I have more reason to care about them because they are multi-dimensional. Creating unforgetable characters requires more than a set of consistancies. Acting differently due to certain events makes them much more dynamic.

"And there were no animal rights messages or anything like that, just the same kind of tired morals you could find in any other kids' show. As far as I'm concerned, any kids TV show which portrays a farmyard as being a happy, peachy place where the animals generally have a good time has no interest in animal rights in the least (farms are generally horrible places that keep the animals locked up in confined spaces indoors - and most of the animals on this one would probably be destined for slaughter anyway - why else would Roger and Anita keep pigs?)."

It's. a. Disney. cartoon. It's not going to take itself seriously. Why else would Roger and Anita even want to move to a farm to begin with at the end of the story if they are truly THAT terrible? Throw your insults at the source material, why dont'cha?

"In the end, this show was so far removed from anything that Dodie Smith had ever written, I wondered why they didn't just come up with their own new set of character names and set them in this completely different environment, instead of hanging onto the minimal similarities just to cash in on the original's fanbase."

The same could probably be said about the original animated movie.

"And if you believe that the 1996 live action version did outdo the original movie, then that's fine."

Sorry, but in a few ways, it DID. Movies can become classics for reasons, but that doesn't mean a more contemporary product can't outdo it.

"But it isn't fair to state that as though it's a fact because it's not the way that most people feel. If you don't believe me, check the ratings here on IMDB. The original has the current score of 7.1/10, while the remake has 5.6/10. Which just goes to show."

To alter a quote from the "Animaniacs" episode "Hollywoodchuck":
"Uh-oh. There's that bandwagon again!"

"And I'm a big Disney fan myself, so please don't think you speak for us all, because you don't. SSJAniFan is right on, in my view. You go, SSJ!"

I'm only defending a show I love. In my view, he's wrong. Sure, I'd rather watch the original animated movie over "102 Dalmatians" and "101 Dalmatians 2: Patch's London Adventure" (the latter is pretty good though...most of its plot is derived from two episodes of 101D: Series), but I prefer the 1996 remake and this show. The late '90s Dalmatians products rock the Casbah.

"You are a child of the universe. No less than the trees and the sky. You have the right to express youself......Put a lid on it."
--Why Cadpig, how uplifting, "101 Dalmatians: the Series". 8)

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] boeing314 19 years ago

I agree with you responses I am a fan of the series

[–] rockndaparadise 17 years ago

I see a lot of posts got deleted on this topic. They must have contained some cuss words or something.