Pure Good Removal: Perdita (Stephen Herek)
I am doing a Pure Good Proposal rejection on Perdita’s 1996 Live-Action Adaptational Film which at the time is linked with the original on the Gallery Infobox.
The reason I am doing so is due to the original Perdita’s Article Page convoluting with the Live-Action who I deem not fit for the status as Pure Good and would suggest the pages to separate.
What's the Work?
101 Dalmatians is the franchise as follows the work is about two Dalmatian Dogs Pongo and Perdita who own 15 Dalmatians and then their Dalmatians are kidnapped by Jasper and Horace demanded by Cruella to turn the Dalmatians into coat. But, they fail and the 15 Dalmatians find 86 more Dalmatians and then they leave and escape. It’s literally just that but Live-Actioned except another antagonist who does attempt to the murderous deed thus being a possible huger threat. Alongside, how most of the dogs in this first movie are noticeably non-sentient (no talking whatsoever and just barking and whining and whimpering) and any talking protagonists are Rodger, Anita, Nanny and nobody else.
Who is the Hero?
Perdita is a Stephen Herek adaptation of the Dodie Smith Book and Disney 1961 version of Perdita; who raises 15 pups and tries to save them from Cruella as well as 84 other pups caring for the 99 pups overall. She is the deuteragonist in the original and a tritagonist in the live-action ski said same actions as in the original except lacking the sentience like with Pongo. She’s also a presumably posthumous antagonist in 102 Dalmatians. However, it is not fully known if she’s dead but it could be likely since they are never brought up anymore but a body count isn’t mentioned.
Why Doesn't the Hero Qualify?
- Perdita much like Pongo lacks anthropomorphic sentience thus lacking a Moral Agency.
- Shows minor mischief.
- She possibly posthumously the admirable standards to Kevin Shepherd who in the sequel saved some Dalmatians from unethical experimentation and even other Dalmatian Dogs.
Overall, much like with her husband. She lacks sentience thus lacking a Moral Agency not being able to be Pure Good in the first place. So, I would go with a yes. There doesn’t seem to be any particular reason for her to be Pure Good still if she can’t talk like her Book and Cartoon Film adaptations shown to which ultimately made her in the adaptations capable of being considered Pure Good when possessing a Moral Agency telling apart from right and wrong. It makes for a yes for me than a no. So, I say a strong yes.