That implies that the story in Derision existed (at least in the way it does now) back at that point.
Which it very likely didn’t as her behaviour in it doesn’t 100% track with the way she behaved in the early seasons.
We didn’t know that she bullied her to that extent back then because it wasn’t the original plan to make her completely irredeemable. So in that point of the story she hadn’t.
Viewing it from an irl production perspective that is.
I’m completely 100% ok with people believing Chloe doesn’t deserve a redemption arc (my opinions on it are quite complicated themselves) Especially now with the direction they did take her character.
But I always take issue with people buying into the idea that the damnation “arc” was absolutely always planned and spinning that around to say the pushback to them abandoning the redemption arc at the time was a mistake on fans behalf.
Especially when there’s a lot of evidence irl that Chloe was not originally supposed to end up with the story she did. That there are noticeable seams where the trade off happened.
Like as someone who has a massive special interest in toy design and the children’s toy industry as a whole? To a slightly neurotic degree?
I can pretty confidently say that she wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the amount of merchandise she got if she actually was always planned to get that bad.
Toy companies hate making merchandise of villains. Especially if it’s for something they consider on the “girls show” side of things. It’s like pulling teeth for even the teeniest bit of villain merch.
And Chloe got a lot of merch. (For the 2-3 merch cycles before her damnation arc started.)
Characters always intended to be villains don’t get this. They straight up don’t.
Especially with how positively so much of this frames her.
She’s shown as a smiley positive force. This is the merchandise a character gets when the marketing team is told they’re a heroic character. A character they want kids to look up to enough to dress up as them.
This portrays a very different idea for Chloe. Merchandise does not conceal narrative elements. In fact it often spoils them. Over half of show spoilers come from merchandise.
The cut off of her getting merch was so abrupt that she has merch releases officially considered “cancelled” that still had a few end up on store shelves.
One of which portraying her… with a pink hair streak…
I’m pretty sure it’s the exact same shade of pink too.
A lot of people on both sides of the Chloe redemption debate believe Zoé’s sudden slightly wonky introduction was as a response to fan backlash. I’ve always personally doubted that. Miraculous writers just don’t write like that.
I think the marketing department and licensed toy companies had the writers metaphorically by the throat. Because this kind of un-communicated narrative swerve is the exact kind of thing that pisses them off.
I would be pissed off too if I just spent years building up the merchandise presence of a character only for the writers to just go “actually she’s gonna stay an insufferable shitheel. In fact? She’s gonna get worse! A lot worse!”
So they were likely made to either backpedal on it or introduce a new similar bee miraculous holder asap.
They chose the latter and Zoé was born. Pulled directly from scrapped Chloe ideas.
For me to believe the damnation arc was always the plan? I’d have to believe the writers lied to the merchendisers. Which makes them look like complete assholes, and would be a confusing thing for them to do.
Why would they want merchandise of a character intended to get that awful?
Simple. She wasn’t. Not at first.
Once again it’s completely valid to not believe Chloe deserved a redemption. I believe heavily in the importance of nuance of takes in fandom spaces.
But it’s important to recognise there were very valid reasons people were (and still are) upset.
Chloe was very noticeably and suddenly retconned out of nowhere. To the degree even merchandisers were caught off guard.
We had every reason to not expect them to take her in a direction they didn’t originally intend her to take.