CONTRIBUTOR'S/EDITOR'S NOTE: Bureaucrat Administrator Jester of Chaos lended me administrative permission to do this proposal.
Pure Good Removal: Pongo (1996 Live-Action Film)
I am doing a Pure Good Proposal rejection on Pongo's Live-Action 1996 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 Pongo's Article Page linking the Live-Action who I deem not fit for the status as Pure Good and would suggest the pages 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?
Basically, the Live-Action Pongo is merely the same as the 1961 original version. (The main characters in the franchise for 101 Dalmatians. Being a protagonist who saves his 15 Dalmatian Pups with the help of Perdita and other Dogs. As well as 84 more pups that Pongo chooses to have as his own to care for with Perdita.) Except, he is noticeably not containing any sentience thus possibly lacking a moral agency to possess between right and wrong and some other possible preventions on the way.
Why Doesn't the Hero Qualify?
- Pongo in the Live-Action film lacks sentience thus lacking a Moral Agency. The only evidence of sentience is Pongo's lengths he did to try to meet Perdita and get Rodger and Anita to stay together so Pongo and Perdita could stay together, and how Pongo and Perdita are seen married. Although, those moments are played for laughs and those are not sufficient enough proof to elaborate Pongo being sentient to the slightest or having a type of Moral Agency.
- And most of the Live-Action Pongo's good plays out similarly, except with the little communication and whether or not Pongo wanted to keep the 84 pups as his own with Perdita or just decided to rescue them possibly out of pragmatic reasons due to again him not being sentient and not establishing himself what he is doing other than just barking and whining.
- Even if he seems sentient to the slightest, Pongo shows mischief and obsessiveness with the lengths he has made to get Rodger and Anita together. However, this part is played for laughs.
- Fails the admirable standards to Kevin Shepherd who is responsible for creating the foster Dog organization "Second Chance", saved some Dogs prior events to the film's sequel (even though the number of how many Dogs is unknown and this information is mentioned by Kevin), and was willing to save the Dalmatians from Cruella De Vil.
The main issue with him being Pure Good is the fact that like most Pure Goods, this Live-Action version of him may not be sentient thus lacking a Moral Agency and not being Pure Good. And in spite of. the bond Pongo and Perdita create for Rodger and Anita, Pongo still acted out of some form of mischief and obsessiveness thus being another prevention. And failing the standards with Kevin Shepherd the one who created the foster Dog organization "Second Chance", saved some Dogs prior events to the film's sequel, and was willing to save the Dalmatians. had done greater causes in the sequel that seems much more Pure Good-ish than Pongo and how Kevin Shepherd possesses a Moral Agency that is established either way.
With that all being said. That is why I say Pongo (1996 Live-Action Film) is NOT Pure Good.