-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are Disney Villains Going Extinct? - Chez Lindsay
- Thread starter caliph95
- Start date
- Status
Wafflecakes
Member
Love her videos.
I agree that it seems like Disney has no interest in making great villains anymore. Hopefully they come back into style.
I agree that it seems like Disney has no interest in making great villains anymore. Hopefully they come back into style.
Wafflecakes
Member
Ugh. OUAT is the worst in that regard.
Everyone gets a redemption ark... Why can't evil just be evil sometimes?
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Great video, thanks for the heads up. I really liked her point about how there are several Disney movies where the villain is good but weakens the movie as a whole at the same time. I also noticed the trend of the more recent Disney films having non-traditional villains that subvert expectations. Lots of 3rd act reveals. These are films that are targeted at the adults who grew up on Disney tropes just as much as the kids. I've come to same conclusion as Lindsay, that there isn't going to be a straight forward narrative for awhile. Not until the pendulum swings the other way and people become nostalgic for the older stories.
Not really memorable or believable to me tbh ,but she was meant to serve the movie's themes I guess.
SchrodingerC
Member
Disney's recent catalog of villains are just disappointing, even the live action iterations. I barely have hope for Gaston in the new B&B movie.
I'd rather have a one dimensional, yet fun villain than whatever Disney has been putting out since 2012.
I'd rather have a one dimensional, yet fun villain than whatever Disney has been putting out since 2012.
John Kowalski
Banned
Pin trading?
There's a wikipedia page for this??
There's a wikipedia page for this??
Zootopia was great, but that villain was garbage. You learn she's the villain then she's defeated, it's super dumb.
ShinySylvee
Member
I think that a lot of writers these days want villains to be fully fleshed out and "realistic," and by that I mean that they have motivations that an actual person would have and they're not just amoral people that relish in the anguish of others. Many villain motivations these days are played out (greed, lust for power, ect) and furthermore I feel like as you said a lot of the people writing Disney movies now are ones that grew up with them and probably liked the style but wanted a bit more nuance and narrative complexity to them. Unfortunately I do think there's been more then a handful of circumstances where shows/movies are more concerned with developing villains as characters then making sure they are functional villains. (And this problem is definitely not limited to Disney animation) I definitely think it's possible to have a threatening and enjoyable villain who also has some depth to their character but it's definitely possible. Personally though I'd rather have a good Villain that's a weak character then a good character that's a bad villain.
Manmademan
Member
Wafflecakes
Member
I hope we're talking post Dr Facilier, because I really liked him as a Disney villain.
If you watched the video you would see that she said he was a good villain with a great theme... that makes the movie worse because of his tenuous connection to the protagonist and plot.
Fair, but it would be nice if they revealed a villain that wasn't garbage.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
You're venturing down a deep dark vortex. It's huge among Disney enthusiasts. There is a whole big culture to the trading. A friend of mine goes to Disney World every month and is super into the pins and marathon medals. You don't really trade the medals since you earn those for half marathons, but you still bring them with you to show off.
Disagreed, Princess and the Frog is about the characters ambitions and he serves as the charlatan selling cheap shortcuts and instant gratification that ultimately undermine that ambition.
His position as largely background to the plot also are thematic of his role as a temptation in the back of ones mind always ready and waiting for you to give in and try to take the easy way out.
Chuckie
Member
I read the article. I am confused af.
Wafflecakes
Member
We are talking about the villain specifically.
The villain's motivation is shallow and two dimensional.
I wasn't explicitly clear, but that was meant to be a sarcastic post regarding the quality of Disney villains.
This one, however, was pretty great:
Triggerhappytel
Member
I hope we're talking post Dr Facilier, because I really liked him as a Disney villain.
Yeah, he was really good; I thought he was effectively creepy and sinister.
It's not really much different from Scar's motivation, or Jafar's motivation, or Ursula's motivation though.
I like the villain in Big Hero 6. He has a believable motive and his powers represent a genuine threat to the team (even if he does pinch the mini robots from the main character).
JonnyDBrit
Member
You ever see a screen capture from tumblr about how 'every villain is the hero of their own story'? Despite that being rather reductive in terms of characterising people's motivations and how they relate to morality, it has become an immensely popular mindset, and so it factors in to how some characters that would traditionally be villains would be sculpted; as Lindsay brings up, the entire premise of Frozen got overturned when this was applied to Elsa.
Parallel to that though...
You have the rise in popularity of twist villains, particularly those who've spent most of the movie being nice. It helps provide a means of building a relationship between them and the heroes without having to deal with the particulars of answering how the hero and villain would interact - it instead makes the 'villain' aspect effectively a non-factor.
Admittedly I would say Hans actually skirts the line a little here, since his particular motivation does allow the twist to provide something of a rewatch bonus as you recontextualise his actions in the movie to fit what he's actually up to. Thus his villainous motivation can be wholly associated with his identity, and we have a villain who is fully present for most of the length of the film.
Otherwise, I agree with the sentiment that Disney does need to realise it can't try to be 'subversive' about its own formula forever, otherwise it starts getting tired and becomes the new cliché. That's part of why I enjoyed Rogue One so much - I didn't have to sit through the film trying to guess who was actually the villain in all this since it was upfront and centre about who's what.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Look at any Disney villain from the renaissance era. The only one with any real arc or motivation is Frollo.
Ursula, wanted beauty
Gaston, wanted the girl
Jafar, wanted the throne
Scar, wanted... the throne
Ratcliffe, wanted money
Hades, wanted (!) the throne
Shan Yu, wanted the throne (is there an echo)
Clayton, wanted... to kill some gorillas, idk. Guess there could be a greed factor here with fur trading and such
Or hell, further back. Some of the best villains didn't even have a motivation, they just felt like starting shit (Maleficent). Cruella De Vil wanted a new coat.
Facilier having a two-dimensional motive is par for the course for Disney villains, good and bad. In fact I might give him a little credit for actually having something at stake in his plan, that he got too deep into voodoo and his soul is on the line.
Manmademan
Member
The villain was fine. The plan made sense and nearly succeeded.
Having the villain be someone with no power or real influence was the point. Small herbivores had virtually no leverage over predators or large herbivores in society despite outnumbering predators by huge margins. Racial prejudice and resentment was a huge, established thing in that society and it was only a matter of time before one of them got fed up and did something drastic against an entire species or group of species.
Having the villain be an Ursula, Gaston, Jafar, Scar type of villain who was powerful with a dominant personality would have been "garbage" because those people HAD ALREADY WON.
look at the bully in Judy's grade school, the police chief, or who the mayor was.
Wafflecakes
Member
Holy fucking shit at those gross oversimplifications of villain motivations.
I mean come on. If you think that is Ursula's motivation you have never seen the movie, period.
You also vastly oversimplified most of the others as well, and you ignore the fact that often their simple motivations are DIRECTLY tied to the protagonist in a very specific way... not a convenience relationship like in Princess and the Frog.
Cool, I will check the video out later.
She wasn't a rememberable villain, heck I don't even remember her name.
Gaston was also vain, selfish, devious and when he found out about the Beast he raised an army to kill him.
Scar was also sick of being in his brother's shadow and could never get out off it even when he killed Mufasa, he was also cunning and had a way with words.
Hades to date is the most fun Disney villain to watch and technically the only one who didn't die.
He didn't want the throne, he wanted to kill the Chinese emperor and was willing to burn down villages to reach it.
She wasn't a rememberable villain, heck I don't even remember her name.
Gaston was also vain, selfish, devious and when he found out about the Beast he raised an army to kill him.
Scar was also sick of being in his brother's shadow and could never get out off it even when he killed Mufasa, he was also cunning and had a way with words.
Hades to date is the most fun Disney villain to watch and technically the only one who didn't die.
He didn't want the throne, he wanted to kill the Chinese emperor and was willing to burn down villages to reach it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I mean sure, there's an argument to be had for the connection to the character.
About "oversimplifying", take someone like Jafar though, can you elaborate what his motivation is outside of wanting to rule? He certainly didn't want to make Agrabah a better place and in fact seemed to already have as much power as he needed. Scar I guess had some daddy issues that were given a really vague throwaway line in the movie (I'm not counting stage show, cut material etc), but the main conflict is he was pissed about being screwed out of the line of succession. Gaston had nothing other than wanting Belle and only because she was the prettiest.
And yeah, sorry, I forgot. Ursula wanted to get back at Triton for banishing her (because she was evil). You got me.
I don't think many would disagree that the latter set of the 90s villains is significantly weaker than the former (again with the exception of Frollo), so I won't delve into them, but they're generally even more paper thin than the other ones. Clayton in particular doesn't add much as a character, only as an allegory for the man vs. nature theme.
By the way, these are all great villains. Please don't think I'm belittling them, I just don't see them as particularly deep or complex.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Hard to have an iconic villain when you hide it until the second half of the second act.
They tried to have a twist in most of their recent films.
They tried to have a twist in most of their recent films.
Exactly my point. Apparently you have to smack people in the face with a glove marked "/s" round here!
Ah I see, apologies I'm at work so haven't had the chance to watch it yet. However I don't feel he was any more "removed" from many of the older Disney villains.
Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
Not a new story, but the new Jungle Book had phenomenal villains. I thought Shere Khan was one of the most intimidating villains I've ever seen in a children's movie, and King Louie was like a fucking Dark Souls boss.
Because they aren't. As you point out, what a villain wants is usually (and preferably) pretty simple. It's how they go about it and how they provoke the protagonist to action that is memorable. Cruella de Vil has one of the least compelling motivations in Disney villain history, but everyone remembers her because she's visually striking, completely dedicated to getting what she wants (one of the Pixar rules: You love a character for trying, even if they don't succeed), and has a great song attached to her name.
And you don't even need that much if you do it right. Maleficent doesn't even have clear motivation, she's just an incredible character design married to a flawless voice performance who turns into a frickin' dragon at the end of the movie.
Hell, one of the favorite villains of the hardcore Disney fans is Chernobog, the demon from Fantasia, and not only does he not even have any lines, but he basically just wants to party with his buddies. But he plays on cultural touchstones to the point that we don't have to know anything about him, we know all we need to know as soon as we lay eyes on him. Show the audience a villain who sticks in their minds after they leave the theater and they'll join the ranks of the Disney classics.
biggersmaller
Banned
I don't necessarily like obvious irredeemably evil villains in every Disney movie. Personally I liked Dawn as the conniving politician. Her not "looking" the part was kinda the point of the movie.
Manmademan
Member
It was absolutely the point of the movie. The reason she was a villain in the first place is BECAUSE she was someone who was overlooked and dismissed.
The audience was introduced to her plenty of times throughout the movie, but the tendency is to dismiss her because of how she looks.
This is literally the whole point of Zootopia. Judy and Dawn struggle with the same problem. One tackles it head on and challenges discrimination and dismissal directly, the other one becomes a villain and works to dismantle society covertly.
old manatee
Banned
Star Wars still has good villains. Disney, MCU, and Pixar not so much.
This is really funny because the Nostalgia Critic also made a video
ON THE SAME SUBJECT ON THE SAME DAY
What are the odds?
http://channelawesome.com/what-happened-to-great-disney-villains/
ON THE SAME SUBJECT ON THE SAME DAY
What are the odds?
http://channelawesome.com/what-happened-to-great-disney-villains/
Jeff Albertson
Member
Davey Jones was pretty awesome but obviously doesn't count in this.
I loved Dr Facilier and thought Gothel was fine as a villain and as believable as any renaissance villain in motive
I loved Dr Facilier and thought Gothel was fine as a villain and as believable as any renaissance villain in motive
I wasn't explicitly clear, but that was meant to be a sarcastic post regarding the quality of Disney villains.
This one, however, was pretty great:
Indeed. Turbo was a great villain and a great twist.
Wreck It Ralph has pretty awesome and unique writing tbh.
UncleSporky
Member
Part of the issue could be that creating a really good, nasty villain could be seen as normalization of that villain's goals and behavior.
Like, look at criticism of Eric Cartman. Yes, we're supposed to be shocked and horrified at his behavior, and/or laugh at him instead of with him, but some of the most common discussion around him now is "how can we have a character on TV who openly hates other races, orientations, Jews etc.?"
Like, look at criticism of Eric Cartman. Yes, we're supposed to be shocked and horrified at his behavior, and/or laugh at him instead of with him, but some of the most common discussion around him now is "how can we have a character on TV who openly hates other races, orientations, Jews etc.?"
petran79
Banned
Most scary and evil villain was the mobster in Oliver and Company.
Also the one in the Great Mouse Detective
If you watched the Lion Guard, Scar was originally the leader and he had the charismatic roar. Revenge was his main motive
Also the one in the Great Mouse Detective
If you watched the Lion Guard, Scar was originally the leader and he had the charismatic roar. Revenge was his main motive
Absolutely this^
The whole point of that character is that she's not some big bad moustache twirling super villain. There's a moral quandary at the center of her that supports the themes of the film. I'm shocked that people wanted her to be something more one note.
I don't think she's necessarily lamenting the lack of villains. In fact, she points out (rightly) that generally, plots to Disney films are more complex and interesting than they have been in the past. I think she's right that there's the possibility that subverting the tropes becomes as stale as the tropes themselves, but the past few Disney movies have been very strong.
I thought Moana's handling of this was actually really good.
And, it's easy to look back on it now and think it's obvious, but the subversion of Frozen was genuinely clever at the time. Both the villain reveal and the eventual "solution" were clever, in line with what we knew about the characters, and reinforced the themes of the film.
As someone who's revisiting the Disney films of the 80's and 90's and watching the new ones (I have kids!), the plotting of the new ones is generally much stronger. In addition, I think having the films be about the growth of the main character rather than defeating an external villain makes them better lessons for kids as well.
On a related note, Vinny from Giant Bomb was talking about basically this with regards to Cars (and how they throw it all out for Cars 2), and while I still don't really like Cars, he's absolutely right that it's more interesting and fulfilling to have a movie about the main character growing up.
I thought Moana's handling of this was actually really good.
In a lot of ways, Maui is the villain, since his selfish actions kicked off the series of events, and the movie is at least somewhat about his redemption. The lava monster is a villain, to be sure, but the movie's much more about Moana figuring out her place and Maui making up or mistakes in the past, and it's stronger because it focuses on those things.
And, it's easy to look back on it now and think it's obvious, but the subversion of Frozen was genuinely clever at the time. Both the villain reveal and the eventual "solution" were clever, in line with what we knew about the characters, and reinforced the themes of the film.
As someone who's revisiting the Disney films of the 80's and 90's and watching the new ones (I have kids!), the plotting of the new ones is generally much stronger. In addition, I think having the films be about the growth of the main character rather than defeating an external villain makes them better lessons for kids as well.
On a related note, Vinny from Giant Bomb was talking about basically this with regards to Cars (and how they throw it all out for Cars 2), and while I still don't really like Cars, he's absolutely right that it's more interesting and fulfilling to have a movie about the main character growing up.
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
I hope we're talking post Dr Facilier, because I really liked him as a Disney villain.
Hey was probably the last great villian. After that, it's been pretty meh overall.
sixteen-bit
Member
I really like this channel. Subbed.
I don't think it's that Disney villains are going extinct nearly so much as interest in Disney villains. The villains, as has been said in this and other videos, just aren't really able to get the screen time they need to be anything more than useful rather than necessary to the plot. Just about every modern Disney villain is a villain on account of a McGuffin that was conveniently never talked about or mentioned. It's nice to see main characters get proper development but truthfully it does very often leave a real sense of conflict or, hell, even stakes, out in the cold. And truth be told, the reason it's happening has more to do with Disney following the money than anything else. If villains become marketable at scale, we'll see more bad, expensive b-movies like Maleficent. If not, well... a lot of people liked Moana and its heroes.
Wafflecakes
Member
She really is fantastic.
She is the only content creator on youtube that I have subbed to on Patreon.
- Status