@@trista. yeah, I hated the twist in light-year,I wanted to see Buzz's father but no Disney thought it wouldn't be too surprising so we just got future buzz.
The worst part is there are examples of villains like this who are done right. Silco from Arcane was able to be empathized with, Nox from Wakfu was trying to undo a mistake from a long time ago. The problem isn’t that Disney is doing new things, it’s that it’s doing them wrong.
Nox was one of the best villains I've ever seen in any media. In most redeeming villains, you could agree with the intent behind their actions but not the method. But Nox? Honestly, if I was promised the same thing he was, I would've done the same as him.
Char Aznable is a perfect example. Spoilers for the Universal Century below: Char’s main goal is to kill the clearly evil Gihren Zabi. His initial antagonism towards Amuro Ray is a professional rivalry only, with some degree of respect between them. Things get complicated when Lalah Sune, Char’s protectorate, falls for Amuro Ray. This leads to Char blaming Ray for Lalah’s death. Char later succeeds in killing the Zabi family off, and during Zeta, he tries to be a good guy. Yet deep inside he slips further and futher into depravity, going into hiding during ZZ as his depravity rises higher and higher. In Char’s Counterattack, he has become embittered and no better than Gihren, dropping colonies and never letting go of his grudges, developing a much creepier lust for Lalah Sune. He is later killed mutually with Amuro Ray in a duel to the death.
I guess the reason why King Candy worked as a twist villain is because in the movie, he was disguised as a Sugar Rush character, but he was actually Turbo, a well known game jumper who acted like a virus that took over games, and was foreshadowed to us by other characters. ("You're not goin' Turbo are you?") When it's revealed that King Candy is actually Turbo, it made us connect the dots to why he was so anti-Vanellope throughout the whole movie. The other twist villains that came after him are super nice to the main characters throughout their movies until the end when they're revealed to be the villains. The movies hardly give us any dots to connect and when they're revealed to be villains, we're like, "What? Where did this come from? I liked them before now!" Which is another reason why it would've been so satisfying to see Namaari be defeated in "Raya and the Last Dragon". She was a jerk the whole time, but when she suddenly becomes a good guy and tries to help the main cast in the end without even an apology for her actions, we're just supposed to accept the idea that she's a good guy now? No way! I wanted to see her fall off a cliff.
Disney villains now: - No villain. It's about personal issues and conflicts between the characters. This is fine but lately, Disney has been hammering its viewers over their heads with morals and the execution is just terrible. ( Raya and trust, Ralph Breaks the Internet and clinginess, Lightyear and working as a team) Also, you can have all those character-developing moments and have a villain that drives the point home and is a three-dimensional character too. (Puss in Boots the Last Wish) - ''Twist'' villain! Most of the time you can guess who the villain might be pretty quickly. When they are finally revealed there is not enough time for them to be bad or have any bearing on the plot. And their evilness just goes from 0 to 100. Professor Callahan calmly stands next to the guy he blames for the death of his daughter and then goes out of his way to kill his students and bystanders and doesn't even consider the possibility of saving his daughter. He's supposed to be a genius? It's like they write the villain and the character completely separately. - ''Redeemable'' villain. Namarii is the worst. She acts like a villain for a whole movie and then she ''turns good'' (she was just trying to save herself and her people) and her personality does a 180. From a stone-cold fighter to an awkward friend. You can not skip the redemption part of the villain redemption story!
Funny thing is, Dreamworks did all of that in their 2022 movies. A good twist villain in Bad Guys, a redeemable villain in Goldylocks and a villain that works with the problems of the protagonist in Death
Yeah Puss in boots the last wish, The so called “Villain” was just doing his job while also making cats that have one more life left to realize they should be happy, So he’s just doing his job in a way
To be honest, regardless of the problems a majority have with Ralph Breaks the Internet, I’m personally glad there wasn’t a villain. What I mean is, I’m just glad they didn’t they come up with a lazy excuse of resurrecting King Candy/Turbo because let’s face it, if many believe Vanellope abandoning her own game goes against the lesson and rules in the original, then bringing back King Candy/Turbo would also break those rules established in the original where a video game character dying outside their own game doesn’t regenerate and stays permanently dead. I’d say it’s better to break one rule than two.
For Callaghan, I think he could’ve worked really well. Say Cray started the fire at the lab to get the tech there for himself. Have Callaghan rescue the Microbots as he did in the movie already. Keep Tadashi’s death as it was. Now he’s lost his daughter, Tadashi, and his research. Continue the movie from that point. He’s not a twist villain that way, he’s a twist anti-hero willing to do anything to get revenge and save his daughter. Most of the movie could work the same from there as well.
You're so right, the worst thing about him for me was how he simply did not care about Tadashi. It made zero sense, and it didn't need to be there. It would have been so much more heartbreaking to have him care deeply for Tadashi and feel the need to double down on his plan to make sure Tadashi didn't die for nothing. The sink cost fallacy is a powerful thing and not hard to write.
There was a nice picture that drew Tadashi as the Kabuki mask man and let's be real - I like that idea. That Tadashi, a nice person, would do something bad against someone bad like Krei - with hints given that he doesn't hurt Hiro or anyone else. It would come as a bigger shock too. Motive would probably be that Tadashis inventions were stolen by Krei once and marketed as Krei tech. Krei sets the fire, Callahan saves the bots and Tadashi, always Tadashi is horribly burned (think a sort of Deadpool situation) - and Tadashi helps Callahan get the portals back together to save the daughter. I also like the idea of Hiro, being an utter brat and aggro in the movie, getting turned away from a dark path by the reveal of Tadashi as kabuki man. Idk, those tidbits would have been neat.
Nah, the daughter who was brought back to life? From that weird portal space? How the heck did she survive all that time in there? With no food, and no IV drip? Just because she is inside a space pod and a weird space, doesn't mean food will fly itself into her mouth or IV drip will magically connect itself to her veins. The daughter being alive was stupidity. They should have just defeated Callaghan and called it a day.
Personally, I think he could have still worked as the main villain. He could have still set the fire, Tadashi still could have died, and the events of the story could have remained the same up to the reveal confrontation. Instead of “That was his mistake!” though, what he could have said was “And that’s another child I’ve lost because of HIM!” That single change in lines could have showed how much he cared for Tadashi, yet how he was still so blinded by rage and grief that he didn’t want to accept Tadashi’s death was his own fault.
I'm kind of tired of King Candy being called a twist villain, because he's not. He's a villain with a twist, the fact he is the antagonist is not kept a secret and his role in the narrative doesn't change when its revealled that he is turbo.
Well he is considered a Twist Villain in the sense he was a character long thought to be gone by most of the video game characters including Ralph and Felix up until the climax of the film when Vanellope’s glitching revealed on who King Candy really is much to the shock of Ralph and Felix.
King Candy is still one of the best Disney twist villains. The reveal explained his obsession with winning and the drive to be in control, and his grudge again Vanellope, rather than diminishing his character.
What I like about King Candy is that he actually sounds reasonable when explaining why Venelope can't race. He tells a lie that hinges on Ralph's friendship to her and the fear that she's stuck in the game. He knows how to play him.
Hans had everything going for him, he was strong, handsome, everyone trusted him, Anna would have more than likely married him and Elsa was hardly an obstacle for him, and almost everything he did up till the end would have been completely understandable and not evil. All he has to do was go with the flow and EVERYTHING would have been alright for him.
Right?? Did he forget that HE HADN'T MARRIED ANNA YET? He has no claim to the kingdom whatsoever! There were regents running the kingdom when the king and queen died, cuz Elsa wasn't of age yet. The kingdom would just go back to a regency.
Although I enjoyed the most recent films from Walt Disney Animation Studios I notice since _Wreck-It Ralph_ and *ESPECIALLY* _Frozen_ onwards that Disney Animation hasn’t been utilizing Traditional Villains in their most recent films for 13 years with Dr. Facilier and Mother Gothel being their most recent traditional villains they utilized and for the past 10 years, Walt Disney Animation Studios has literally been just using either Twist Villains and/or a Generational Trauma as the antagonist for their latest movies and when I rewatched _Aladdin_ 3 months ago on Disney+ I begin to miss the actual Disney villains that Walt Disney Animation Studios previously utilized. In fact, it’s worth noting that Walt Disney Animation Studios seems to follow the Pixar model ever since Disney acquired the studio back in 2006, by having most of their recent animated movies just put more focus on having the protagonists/heroes being more "relatable" due to their interpersonal problems similar to how Pixar does it with their own protagonists in most of their movies, and because of this it results in Disney Animation moving away from the traditional villains that were previously utilized from the Golden/Silver Ages and Renaissance era for "Twist Villains” or a generational trauma from a “force of nature" or the protagonists own insecurities as the antagonist. If anything, the reason Walt Disney Animation Studios and to a degree Pixar’s are hesitant and unwilling on having actual villains in their current animated movies is because from their especially Walt Disney Animation Studios’ POV they think villains are "obsolete and aren’t important to audiences" and lack black and white morality compared to their protagonists who they want to put more development on. However, you then have the likes of other rival animation studios from DreamWorks Animation, Illumination, Sony Pictures Animation, Warner Animation Group and even Guillermo Del Toro’s _Pinocchio_ on Netflix that still utilized traditional villains that are complex and understandable in their movies and audiences still care and resonated with these villains, but to Disney Animation they just don’t want to "move forward” and continue being Inflexible on utilizing villains in their latest movies. It’s also the same argument why Walt Disney Animation Studios hasn’t done any animated films based on adapted works (fairy tales, books, novels) anymore like _Rumplestiltskin, Hansel and Gretel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Puss in Boots, The Nightingale, Blue Beard, Swan Lake, The Girl Who Drank the Moon, The Brave Adventures of Lapitch_ etc. and just do original films with Fairy Tale/Fantasy motifs instead because to Disney they think that the themes and messages from fairy tales "wouldn’t resonate well to modern audiences" in today’s society hence why they haven’t done any animated films based on adapted works following _Tangled_ (based on Rapunzel), _Frozen_ (inspired by The Snow Queen), and _Big Hero 6_ (based on the Big Hero 6 Marvel comic books). I'm hopeful and optimistic, that with _Wish_ which is rumored to have a traditional villain (but keeping expectations low) I hope that for future Disney animated films from Walt Disney Animation Studios will start bringing back the classic Disney villain trope that was utilized from the Renaissance era and in their earlier Disney animated films since Snow White. Speaking of Pixar, I think when Pixar handles their Twist villains such as Stinky Pete, Mr. Waternoose, Charles Muntz, Lotso, and Ernesto de La Cruz compared to Disney Animation’s own Twist Villains released after King Candy (Hans, Callaghan, Bellwether) who are kind but soon revealed their kindness is just a facade, the Pixar Twist villains act warm, friendly and hospitable to the protagonists but then they start showing their true colors and a different side to them when something they want or their reputation feels threatened and take matters on their own hands such as Stinky Pete on wanting to have himself be preserved in a Museum in Japan instead of joining Woody, Jessie and Bullseye to become Andy’s toys and when Ernesto de La Cruz prevents Miguel from returning to the living world with Héctor’s photo.
I recall hearing that their attempts at downplaying the villains was a response to criticisms their past films received, with critics complaining that they tended to add villains to stories that didn’t really need one and watering down a complex conflict into a simple black vs. white narrative.
@@geoffreyrichards6079 You’re not completely wrong and I also mentioned this in my comment, the filmmakers and writers at Walt Disney Animation Studios for the past 10-13 years seems to follow the Pixar model ever since Disney acquired the studio back in 2006, by having most of their recent animated movies just put more focus on either story or having the protagonists/heroes of their films being more "relatable" due to their interpersonal problems similar to how Pixar does it with their own protagonists in most of their movies. But because of this, it results in Walt Disney Animation Studios moving away from the traditional villains that were previously utilized from the Golden/Silver Ages and Renaissance era for "Twist Villains” or a generational trauma from either a “force of nature" or the protagonists own insecurities as the antagonist instead.
Anyone else noticed how awful the message of "trust" in Raya and the Last Dragon is. They absolutely failed on how trust works. Trust is earned, not given but Sisu kept on pushing that you just have to trust anybody regardless of their reputation, past actions or credibility.
I find the worst part about most of Disney's twist villains, especially with characters like Hans, Bellweather and Callaghan, is that the twist itself is the most if not _only_ interesting thing about them. At first they're just generic supporting characters that don't leave any impact, and then when the twist happens they're just reduced to unmemorable, one-dimensional bad guys with evil plots that were apparently in motion the whole time. The brief shock factor of when the twist actually happens is the only thing that leaves any impact on the viewer, and even that wore off after about the third time when audiences had become trained to _expect_ a twist villain. It doesn't help that when the reveal happens, the friendly fronts these characters put on for most of the film before that point are revealed to be a complete lie that didn't represent at all what they're actually like. So for most of the film we've been following a character that doesn't even exist, and we don't know anything about the "real" version of them because they've only just shown up. So rather than the twist giving them more layers and development, it essentially just splits the villain into _two_ completely different yet equally poorly developed characters.
dude, you've perfectly put it into words better than i ever could. and thanks to them pulling the same stunt 3 or 4 times in a row, i don't think i can EVER enjoy any new movies to come out in the upcoming years since they conditioned me to be constantly looking over my shoulder for new twist villains. "suspicious" is not something i should EVER want to be feeling when watching a freakin' Disney movie.
When I first saw Hans as a kid being all nice and friendly around Anna, I thought he was an okay character who doesn’t end up with her. He was shown to care for the kingdom during the winter fiasco and didn’t seem to have any malicious intent. Then the stupid twist came out of nowhere and he all of a sudden acts like a mustache-twirling villain, and everyone acts like he’s the worst at the end of the film. Elsa should’ve been the villain like in the original concept art.
Yeah they try to hide the fact they are twist-villians by downplaying them as friendly nobody's in the background that will help the characters in their time of need. Instead of making them interesting and complex from the start. This is what the older Disney villians had in soades. The villian who is obvious from their design, voice acting and intentions from the start can lay out their goals and personality at the start. So you get more funny, intimadating and dynamic scenes for longer. Twist villians? It's pretty much as you described, just a mediocre bland reveal at the end that seems very one-dimensional and lame.
@@tototats16 that's how i felt about him too! though i also felt it was going to be one of those movies that didn't NEED a straight-up villain. didn't know about the behind-the-scenes stuff of making Elsa the bad guy until i looked up the original Snow Queen story, not big on looking up behind-the-scenes stuff with Disney.
If you're going to have a sympathetic villain, use that as a reason, not an excuse for their actions. If done right, it can make the villain more chilling. Or it can remind the viewer the importance of a moral base. It should never be used as the first and last step of a redemption. If you want to redeem the villain, fine, it can work. Exhibit A: Prince Zuko, Exhibit B: David Xanatos. Don't rob the audience of the story while telling your story. Or you get another Hans.
I was told 'Hans was a good twist villain because of the hints he dropped in his song with Anna' but the person didn't attempt to argue the point of Hans smiling sweetly after first meeting Anna when no one was around to witness the act. It was just to throw the audience off. He shouldn't have been a twist villain but rather just not a match for Anna.
Hans using manipulation tactics to get close to Anna is a nice touch on rewatch, but it's nowhere near enough to sell his complete 180 when Anna is brought back to the castle. This is someone who's been incredibly careful to weasel his way into power, and suddenly he gets careless and doesn't even bother to make sure Anna dies. The twist villain Hans ultimately feels like a last-minute change because Elsa was rewritten to not be the villain after Let It Go turned out the way it did. Someone must've said "Hey, we still need a villain for this movie", so the team seemingly picked Hans at random instead of the much more sensible choice in the Duke.
@@austinreed7343 They could've (and in my opinion should've) made him more serious at the very least. The Duke dancing like a fool at the ball sucked away all the threat level he previously had. He still could've been comedic and the butt of some jokes, but there needed to be a more serious edge too. Captain Hook is still the best at blending both worlds imo.
@@matthewmazzatto8003 Indeed he would. Now I’m imagining a scene of him sneaking up on Elsa, his face framed in shadow with his eyes and teeth gleaming.
@@austinreed7343 on my first watch I actually thought that he would be the main villain. Like there were some fat hints towards that. But then the Hans twist happened and I was kinda disappointed.
Hans could have worked not as a villain but as an unwilling victim if they had used the Original problem that catapulted the story of origin in the first place: The Demon Mirror. In the original tale, that mirror shattered into a million pieces and scattered into the winds. Anyone who was unlucky to have one of them fall into their eye will see the worst version of those around them and act hostile. They could have made it into a villain and be the one who influenced the events of the movie. The royal's sudden isolation, Elsa's fear, and Han's terrible about face. They could have used that to make Hans struggling until he broke when Anna needed him the most. I may not be the best storyteller but this would have been a better fix than the crap they cobbled together once they decided Elsa was no longer a villain.
Fantastic point! I've never heard that suggested by anyone else. (I know the fairy tale, but it's been a long time ...) With that device, the twist could have been used for shock value without utterly demonising Hans.
I love King Candy because it's not JUST a twist villain, if anything, he is a Villain with a Twist. It's got a setup, with Turbo always being mentioned, how he went into other games. Wreck it Ralph's whole character arc is about not wanting to turn out like him, not only that, but the fact he mysteriously disappears, and when it is revealed it's like "Of course! He's a racer too!" Not only do all of the previous details build to this, but the explanation and visuals I'd say also work great, King Candy/Turbo is INTEGRAL to the story, and it would not work without him, Vennelope also would not exist because of him, THAT'S what makes him work. King Candy even before the reveal was a Villain, the reveal was just the Cherry on the themed race course Cake.
Wreck it Ralph had so much conflict: 1. Ralph trying to win a medal but was told bad guys don't win medals 2. Fix it Felix trying to get Ralph to come back to his game before it goes out of order. 3. Calhoun trying to destroy all cybugs before they destroy every game in the arcade. 4. Vanellope wanting to race in Sugar Rush but was told glitches can't race 5. King Candy/Turbo trying to stay the most popular video game character
Ralphs conflict was the best, because we know what the morally right choice would be. To risk putting your whole crew out of a job to pursue a selfish goal is objectively wrong, but nobody can claim they wouldn't have done the same. The guy had to take so much and got 0 gratitude.
The problem with Prince Hans is that, by scraping the concept of Elsa being the villain in favor of Anna and Elsa being sisters, Frozen's story doesn't need a villain to begin with. Villains like Scar and Hades work because they are the reason the plots in their respective movies exist to begin with. Frozen's plot has almost nothing to do with some creepy guy who wants to take over the kingdom of Arendelle, despite the movie's attempts to convince you otherwise, (such as Anna being naive, Anna's act of true love, etc.). If Hans was written out of the movie and Elsa found out a way to unthaw Anna's Frozen heart herself, nothing would have changed. The only way a villain other than Elsa can work is if the villain has a compelling reason for wanting to hurt Anna, giving Elsa an actual incentive to learn to control her powers, which is so she can protect her sister. Other than that, there really isn't a need for Frozen to have a villain if Elsa isn't going be the villain of the movie.
Totally agree. Hans added nothing to the story other than making Anna look like a gullible idiot. Even Elsa points this out. The movie would have been stronger if that entire subplot had been scrapped.
There's really no problem with a twist or sympathetic villain on its own, it's just that, like with the more "Pure Evil" villains that we know and love, how they're written is paramount. I remember one of my favorite RPGs in the past had the heroes desperately working to help the church only to find out that the church is evil and its ultimate leader is a legendary ancient hero who wants to resurrect his sister at the cost of countless lives before creating his own heartless utopia. By the end you feel a great deal of sympathy for him, as he lost everything fighting for people who hated him simply because of his mixed race heritage, but even though you sympathize and even understand why his ideal world would look heavenly to him, this doesn't remotely reduce his fearsomeness, or make his ideal any less hellish for everyone else. In the end, he's a satisfyingly threatening villain while also being a real surprise and yet sympathetic enough to be honored in the end by naming the Tree of Life that heals the world after him.
@@shavagreycastle It's called Tales of Symphonia. Downside is it's a bit older so I don't think it's available on new systems. I have it on PS3 and originally played it on GameCube long ago.
A great example; Spoilers for the Gundam trilogy (0079, Zeta, and CC) Char Aznable. Char Aznable starts off redeemable, even trying to actively redeem himself, but things like the loss of Lalah Sune embitter him until he has become a pure evil villain by the time of Char’s Counterattack. For this, he is one of the greatest villains of all time.
Disney actually HAS been making real Disney villains, just not with their movies. The Disney animated T.V. shows like Gravity Falls, Amphibia, and The Owl House each have fantastic villains that definitely lean more towards the classic archetypes rather than the modern "twist" approach. I don't want to spoil anything, but to those who want a good Disney villain, I highly recommend giving the animated shows a try.
I disagree on Amphibia. Andreas started okay, but the moment they started redeeming him, he went downhill, and the Core was not given enough personality to be a great villain.
I disagree on The Owl House. The moment Belos was given the very boring, basic, and underwhelming backstory of simply being a witch hunting colonizer is when he lost appeal as a villain. And The Collector is boring as well with an inconsistent personality and uninteresting motives.
I disagree on Gra... No just kidding, you can't disagree with Bill being a fantastic villain (Also, i wanted the villains of DuckTales2017 witch i think are also pretty good for the most part)
@@valentinkambushev4968 How did Andrias going through a redemption arc cause him to go downhill? And why don't you think the Core has enough personality, even when possessing Marcy?
King Candy/Turbo and Ernesto de la Cruz are the only good Disney villains we’ve gotten in the past decade. TWO villains among a whole decade of animation.
I'm kind of tired of King Candy being called a twist villain, because he's not. He's a villain with a twist, the fact he is the antagonist is not kept a secret and his role in the narrative doesn't change when its revealled that he is turbo. Honestly, same with Ernesto, because the twist happens early enough on for him to have time to be villainous.
@@Danbo22987 But he still was a Twist Villain considering he was actually originally a video game character who gone rouge on wanting the attention and led to his game and the other he tried to take over being unplugged thus leading to the term "Going TURBO", and for a while most of the video game characters including Wreck-It Ralph and Fix-It Felix Jr. thought Turbo was gone but unbeknownst to many Turbo somehow escaped his own game and took over Sugar Rush to become King Candy and deleting Vanellope’s code rendering her into a glitch. It wasn’t until the climax when Vanellope’s glitching cause King Candy to reveal who he really is much to the shock of Ralph and Felix.
@@Danbo22987 He's a twist villain in the sense that no one would think he's show up because he was supposed to be gone after the videogame he infiltraded shut down
The fact that King Candy is really Turbo doesn't have any impact on his status as a villain. The story establishes him as an evil, manipulative POS long before his true identity is revealed.
Something I’ve come to realize is that many of the greatest villains serve as dark foils to the hero. The Joker, Darth Vader, all of Disney’s greatest villains…they all serve as dark mirrors to the hero, being effectively what the hero could become if they don’t overcome their demons. Of course, “modern” heroes don’t have any demons, so if they come up against a villain, they’ll be weak and unmemorable.
I mean to be fair Bellwhether perfectly fits the theme of Zootopia: subverting the expectations we have about animal stereotypes. Judy is a cute small bunny who wants to be taken seriously with the police like the rhinos and elephants. Nick is a fox who struggles with preconcieved notions of foxes as sly and sleazy. And other characters have this too: Clauhauser is a cheetah who is lean and fast and a predator of gazelles yet he is round and tubby and is a fan of a gazelle superstar. Flash is a sloth who is slow, but actually is a fan of street racing. So it perfectly fits the idea, while it could be executed better, of the main villain being, of all things, a little sheep who is stereotyped as a meek and gentle creature.
Real. It makes sense, it fits in the story but they could have worked it a bit more. Like, I don't know, showing little moments of her being bitter about predators in her workspace (specially if they hold some kind of power over her, like her boss. Actually have her complain about him, not just look like a helpless secretary 🗿), making generalizing coments about them, things like that. And I think it would make the trick; she hides in the innocent facade but her discriminatory side shows anyway, it's just kinda downplayed by the idea that Bellwether is just a cute little sheep. And there it is, it wouldn't make it a masterpiece but it would add something more to the mix 👁️👁️
You know, they did have a totally different plot planned, it was MUCH, MUCH darker, to sum it up, the predators would have to use leash that would give them shocks everytime they "felt" a "stronger emotion" and the main villain would that pig lady, again they dropped it because it was too dark,
And if you rewatch the movie, there are actually more than a few hints that Bellwhether was the true antagonist. Like she has doug’s number on a sticky note attached to her phone, or telling Judy “Us prey need to stick together”.
Might be weird to reference Dreamworks here, but I think Megamind summed it up. One thing Modern Disney villains are lacking is "Presentation!" Look at the classics (especially animated). Ursula, Jafar, Scar, etc. These characters have presence. They are evil, but they are also spectacular while being that. Just looking at Scar. He cruelly betrays Mufasa and even more cruelly makes Simba feel like it is his fault. Then after crushing his spirit...he sends the hyenas after him to kill him. Utterly unnecessary. If he wanted Simba dead he could have done it himself and didn't have to mess with his head. But he wanted to be utterly despicable.
I think we can also agree that Mother Gothel, from Tangled, is one of the best Disney CG villains, if not THE best. She’s manipulative from the start and doesn’t show remorse for her actions. Which is classic Disney villain.
Thing is, Prince Hans was a good leader. He stayed behind to actually clean up the mess Elsa (and Anna) left behind. He opened up the palace to provide people with food. He was shown distributing supplies like wood and cloaks. He asked Elsa to please stop the winter and end her people's suffering. I get that he's the villain but wouldnt it be better if he were unfit to lead? Because now it looked like Arendele would have been in good hands with Hans
The one that probably annoys me the most is Zurg in Lightyear since they just retconned Toy Story canon with it. Even if it was just a Star Wars parody joke, Zurg telling Buzz he’s Buzz’s father in Toy Story 2 was still said by a toy who thought he was the real Evil Emperor Zurg with the purpose of “Destroy Buzz Lightyear” so even if it was a joke it’s still official because of that but instead of just sticking with what they did Disney just decided “pull the rug out from under the audience for like the millionth freaking time” by only referencing that in Lightyear when Buzz for a second thinks Zurg is his dad before they show it’s an alternate future Buzz and I’m just like “Are you kidding me? You don’t just mess with the continuity of arguably the most beloved animated movie franchise of all time for the sake of shock value that you’ve done for like every single freaking movie ever since Wreck-It-Ralph when it really only worked well in that movie”. I mean the best explanation with all of that I can think of is that since the director of Lightyear confirmed that in-universe the Buzz Lightyear movies are a trilogy that the real Zurg came into play in either the second or third and got his tech back to fight Buzz and his team but the fact that I have to assume that happened in movies we’re likely never going to see feels like it just says why Disney just seriously needs to stop with twist villains and go back and do more stuff like Maleficent, Scar, Jafar, and Hades or even take notes from Puss in Boots:The Last Wish since they had actual sympathetic and enjoyable antagonists with Goldi and the Bears, a very fun but still irredeemable one with Jack Horner, and one of the most intimidating and well used animated movie villains I’ve ever seen with Death where the first two (well, I guess five) basically guarantee a fun time when they show up and the latter is actually scary since using the creepy shots and the whistling that had freaked Puss out in their first encounter can make the audience go “Oh crap, get out of there Puss!” especially after Death mopped the floor with Puss in the first go-round, so when Puss survives him it feels so triumphant and it fits with what Puss is going through throughout the movie. Seriously Disney, take notes, that is how you do it, not constantly going with “They’ve been evil the whole time!”, or “They’re actually not a bad person”, I and I’m sure at least several others wanna see more like Jack or especially Death where it’s like “You do not wanna mess with this person at all or they will kill you”
He also sold his case as to why Vanellope shouldn't win really well. This came after we saw him messing with the code, but his argument to Ralph about Vanellope's glitchy nature still makes total sense from Ralph's point of view. King Candy was a legit clever character even before his reveal as Turbo.
@Matthew Mazzatto yes he was, I think that movie is my personal favorite from 2010's era of disney, but would have been a masterpiece with a reduction of the poop humor or actually having ralph sacrifice himself and not get saved by vanelope, but that's just my opinion.
Absolutely. The fact that his reason for 'doing what he's doing' (ei preventing vanollepe to race) actually MADE SENSE and wasn't just something he pulled out of nowhere because 1) vanollepe already confirmed glitches couldn't leave their game, and 2) if a game glitches, it 'dies'/gets unplugged, so the reasoning King Candy used was not only clever but almost a perfect set up that fooled not only Ralph but the audience was well UP until the actual reveal and that's why it was such an amazing twist.
The only one I liked was King Candy, maybe it's because this trend was still just beggining so he still felt fresh but now there's an oversaturation in the market.
KC worked because it was hinted at throughout the film through little sprinkles of information; also because he was fun to watch even after the reveal. Most others don't have this, which is why they failed.
He was entertainingly evil and wasn’t afraid to hurt Vanellope during the race. Plus, his Turbo reveal made him look creepier, and the way he morphed with the Cy-Bug at the end was great.
I wouldn't count King Candy as a twist villain like the others. The movie establishes that he is a villain long before it reveales that he is really Turbo. His true identity doesn't have any impact on his villain status.
They really need to take notes from Puss In Boots The Last Wish, that movie had like 3 antagonists and all of them were so great and memorable. Dreamworks is really crushing Disney right now in terms of quality of their animations and storytelling.
Callaghan as a villain worked for me, until they brought back his daughter. He was a man filled with hidden bitterness and rage, but impotent from lack of opportunity. Once he saw Hiro's bots, he began seeking revenge. Even his dismissal of Todashi's death can be seen as furthering his moral decline. However, safely bringing back his daughter undermined his character development. The better options would for them to never find her, for them to find her dead, or for Callaghan's quest for vengeance to kill her. This would have better contrasted him with Hiro, who overcame his hate to do the right thing.
Frozen was actually good and I'll die on that hill, but Hans's villain reveal was so baffling, I actually ended up looking into rules of monarchy succession. His plan wouldn't have worked at all. Ever. Elsa effectively abdicated her throne, putting Anna in charge. If Anna were to die (or otherwise be unable to rule), Hans wouldn't take over as he could never be king. His marriage to Anna would make him Royal Consort and any power he would have would be inextricably linked to Anna's. With Elsa in the mountains and Anna presumably dead, rulership would transfer back to the stewardship (or whoever ruled Arendelle before Elsa came of age) until a suitable heir could be found. Hans would never be King of Arendelle. Even in a crisis situation, he would only maintain power if Anna did as well.
I feel like Eveyln Deavor Could have worked as a villain if she was all in on rebuilding Heroes with her Brother where they were open and honest even with each other, working together and constructing a villain which helped get the Heroes back in the Limelight, and things just got out of hand when Elastigirl kept looking into the case. With Helen choosing to do the right thing by bringing the siblings to justice, even though they were her most vocal proponents for bringing Heroes back. This would have forced Evelyn into fully embrace becoming the 'villain' showing how devoted she is to the bit, with her brother stoking the media and altering the narrative so that no matter what, Heroes would have to come back. obviously a lot would have to be changed to alter this new direction, but I think it has potential
Princess Namaari is an antagonist, not a villain. Unpopular opinion, but I really love and sympathize with her. If there was ever a true victim in Raya and the Last Dragon, it would be princess Namaari. She was raised to be a warrior and her mother didn't seem to be very warm or loving towards her. I don't doubt that chieftess Virana genuinely loved her daughter, but she used and manipulated her for personal gain. Raya was raised with warmth and kindness, Namaari was raised with coldness and brutality to become a warrior. It was pretty obvious that Virana, as much as she loved Namaari, raised her as a subject and a warrior firstly, but as a daughter secondly.
King Candy/Turbo really did work though. For one, he positioned himself as an antagonistic force early on, so he got time to be the bad guy. Second, even when he played nice, we all kinda knew something was up. For three, Turbo was already set up as a legend and cautionary tale long before the reveal, so it felt like it was paying off instead of just being out of nowhere. Fourth, on rewatch, we can see hints (King Candy has a design that's pretty different and distinct from the other racers, his head is a different shape and so are his legs/feet and whole body really. He's not based on any particular candy, and his castle being pink fits Vanellope's dress really well so you can kinda see that he didn't belong. There were always hints he didn't belong. Oh, and can't forget, racing games.
Hell, he even tries to correct Ralph on the color by claiming it's "salmon", which shows a sense of insecurity, which is something Turbo was known for because it was what made him infiltrate another game
You can tell older villains were more memorable when I remember Maleficent even though I've legitimately never actually seen the movie she first appeared in.
I would argue king candy is there only good twist villain. Just because we actually see him do evil things through the film, he is seen diving into the games code where code has been ripped out, we learn about turbo and how he lead to a game being unplugged by going rouge, and the only real twist is that king candy was turbo, but with what we've seen, it makes perfect sense.
Making hans a villians was a horrible choice. Like why would he save Elsa if he wanted the throne? One less obstacle in his way if she was dead. And he genuinely seemed to care about Anna through out the film. The film theorists did a video about him not being the true villain. I recommend y'all check it out
I'm pretty late to this great video, unfortunately! But in my opinion, the best villain in all of Disney is not a twist villain or a straightforward classy, eloquent, I-love-being-evil kind of villain. It's Silver from Treasure Planet. He manages to be both incredibly sympathetic in his friendly moments and completely formidable and scary in his evil moments. He has no noble motivations like Namaari and no tragic backstory to "justify" his actions like Callaghan. But like Hades, he's just such a charmer, and like Maleficent, he absolutely loves what he's doing (and never stops loving it). The thing that makes him unique and fascinating is his love for one person - which doesn't even redeem him from his actions. It just adds a hundred extra dimensions to his character, and I think makes him Disney's only true morally grey villain.
Also, I find it needlessly strange and tone deaf when Disney does things in their remakes to remove or alter a scene involving a pre-established villain to “update it for modern sensibilities” such as removing Jafar’s desire to make Jasmine fall in love with him and her kissing him to stall for time. Like, yeah, an older adult male subjecting a teenage girl into enslavement to become his bride is creepy… IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE!! Jafar is supposed to be an irredeemable bastard, and you SHOULD feel disgusted by his greedy and problematic actions, THAT’S THE POINT!
Am I the only one who liked Professor Callaghan?? He was good in big hero 6 😭 Plus King Candy is iconic all these other “twist villians” want to be him so bad
The hate is because Professor Callaghan was predictable and had very underwhelming motivation, in my opinion, he's not bad just underdeveloped (although I like how they used his motivation to show how Hiro could've been the same)
The issue with him is his actions don't really match his motivations. His whole motive was revenge on the CEO who got his daughter exiled, so in response he...endangers many innocent bystanders by committing arson and actually murders the MC's brother just so he can steal his tech and dress up like a spooky ghost man...seems like an overly-convoluted plot for a simple revenge motive; he could've just shot the guy! If he was more like, say, Syndrome from the Incredibles, who was a total sociopath with delusions of grandeur and actual long-term plans, then maybe it would've worked better.
He would have worked really well as Hiro's foil. Have the movie go like it did, but show him trying to save Tadashi and everyone in the stadium. Hiro and he are both mourning and he takes the Microbots, having experience with them trying to save people. Reveal the death (yes death, no saving her) of his daughter, with that being the motivation on his repeated attacks against the corporation's properties. Just before the final confrontation Hiro and Calahan have a discussion on revenge and learning to let go of the pain. Hiro can, Calahan can't. And it results in his death. Valuable lesson, much better villain, satisfying ending.
I personally thought Callaghan was a decent Twist Villain, at least compare to the likes of Hans and Bell Wether given how there's some hints and clues around the beginning like his grudge against Krei. But he falls apart during the reveal for being inhuman, his reveal isn't given enough time to explain why he was doing trying to harm his students and why he needed the microbots, and being written to be dumb. I did a fanfic with the Big Hero 6 story and try to fix his problems as a twist villain while trying to rework but still using the infamous line; "that was his mistake" given it's what people remember him for and wasn't sure how else he would go off saying anything that Hiro sets Baymax in a killer mode.
The issue is that there wasn’t any motive for him being the villain until the last possible second. Compare that to Stinky Pete in Toy Story 2, whose motive is plainly spelt out (keep in good condition and get sold) throughout the story and him being a villain is revealed at the last possible moment. The issue Disney had with their later twist villains was that they weren’t getting the needed set-up, so there was a rush to reveal the motive and their villainy.
The horned king, frollo and Jafar are my fav Disney villains. They're just pure evil, but also good characters. And im so happy that someone finally mentions the horned king and frollo
The reason king candy worked was because he was already a villian. He was already the bad guy but then presented reasoning behind it. Onl for it to be revealed that he lied and was lying the whole time. He was there the whole film he wasn’t a random person who became a villian
It’s a delusional talk but I really really hope Disney wake up and put actual good villains in their movies instead of using trauma as the villain. Encanto did a great job for that, but still a good solid and physical villain is 2x better. They are flashy, charismatic, smart or comedically dumb, and also evil. Puss in Boots: Last Wish had 3 villains: a chaotic neutral, a redeemable one, and a pure evil dude. These 3 appeared in the same goddamn movie and the result is phenomenal, it’s a miracle that it did not end up making the movie a huge clusterfck. Disney writers should fcking take notes from their ancestors and from Dreamworks.
It’s just the stories themselves, when you have a fairytale type story and villain is all laid out. But when Disney attempts to create a new story, they have to create a villain and they’re not doing that at all.
They're awful, either they're the lazy, nihilistic anti-heroes, have a lame twist too them for plot convenience or they're just generic and forgettable 5 minutes after you've seen them It's like Disney doesn't believe that some people are just evil and can't be helped
King Candy does actually work, because there’s enough clues for you to figure out he’s the villain, they don’t make him sympathetic as he seems to just be the king who would naturally care for his kingdom, making his manipulations more subtle, and his motivations actually make sense. The reveal that he’s turbo actually cements his character motivations, and though it is a twist reveal, the villain of the story actually never changes. The issue is they’re trying to take a formula that has worked for a lot of their more successful franchises and apply them to all their movies where they’re not needed and the twist doesn’t feel natural, the emotional depth unearned. Sometimes a villain is just a villain and you love them because of their villiany. Meanwhile you got studios like Dreamworks blowing it out the park with their villains with fierce consistency for the past 20 years
Kind Candy was a twist villain done right. He clearly has good reasons for stopping Venelope from racing, and doesn’t wave from that. The reveal of his true identity near the end worked so well because it connected with a small detail/mystery which was revealed since the start of the film (your going Turbo), it was a twist which connected to the small details in the story and everything that happened since the start. Recent twist villains don’t have that same feel or even presence throughout the tales. They’re in the background through the whole tale and revealed at the end, when they weren’t even in the story in the first place.
The funny thing about Lightyear, is that it has been done before, an evil Buzz Lightyear from an alternate dimension, this was the premise an episode of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, "The Lightyear Factor", where emperor Zurg finds a portal to a parallel universe, and encounters an evil Lightyear, seeing it as an opportunity to get rid the good Buzz, Zurg tricks him and traps Buzz into the alternate universe. This was done in 2000, it was interesting and fun, and did not try to take this so seriously, Lightyear did not need to be a soap opera, dripping in melodrama, it could have been a fun adventure sci-fi, with the over-the-top emperor Zurg, seeking out a new planet to conquer, and hamming it up while monologuing his plan to Buzz, the film should have tried being an episode of BLoSC.
Recent movies care more about the protagonists and a moral message than antagonists. Renaissance and orig Disney were often based off darker stories, and while most of the story and protagonists were watered down and the villains weren't.
Villains were often SOUPED UP compared to the source material, big case in point being Frollo. In the novel, Genocide wasn’t on his agenda, nor infanticide.
King candy, Ernesto de la Cruz and Mother gothal are the only good modern villains…. It’s sad that there’s only 3 compared to the many before the 2010’s
I’ve seen someone say that like, “after Hans reveals he is a villain this means that everything he did before wasn’t happiness but it was like I wanna murder her so I can be king”. But I really think don’t think he was faking, I really think he was a character that got mangled with problematic movie development. It’s not his character to be evil, the writers just ruined him.
Had a similar situation with the two main villains from Freedom Planet and its sequel. Brevon was an intergalactic warlord who curb stomped the series version of a Federation. He shows absolutely no sympathy for the lives he has ruined. Starts a war between three nations just to get a magic relic to power his ship, tortures the lead for information, followed by more torture after he gets it and genuinely causes nothing but suffering to anyone who stood in his way. Merga was an example of a tragic villain but she loses points on that since you can still feel the presence of the original that left a scar on the world. Doesn't cause nearly the same level of damage and without directly spoiling anything, a certain event occurs that completely destroys the villain from her tragic.
Come now, we all know why, they're making the villains more sympathetic and relatable prolly because they also think like a villain and thinking that they ain't that bad. 😂
For me it’s what I saw another commentary RU-vidr say. “Villains need to be as evil as their heroes are good.” If the heroes are sort of good, or only “good” because they’re the main character, the villains usually are lacking motivation and power too. They started losing when they kept pushing the “sympathetic villain” character instead of making a villain evil to tell a story. And you CAN make an interesting, ‘sympathetic’ villain, but they’ve lost that ability.
Modern Disney Villains have really messed me up. As a kid I used to pride myself at being able to predict the twist villain and plot and then I watched Big Hero 6, Frozen, and Zootopia. These 3 movies have really made me mad because you never could've predicted the twist. I literally studied creative writing and private investigation because I wanted to never be tricked like that again.
My gripe with the incredibles, big hero 6, and the last dragon. Is that all of these movies have great worlds which Disney could use to make great series. Instead of wasting disney+ on acquired content. Like the buzz lightyear series is one of their best series.
Getting sick of disney making every villian a suprise villian. They try to set up someone who disagrees with the main character, then they all have that one person who actually is helpful/ believe in the hero, then in the end its always the one who tried to be the heros friend. They have done the same twist so many times that its not a suprise anymore, its dull and tierd and unispiered!
Not too long ago I rewatched the song, "Love is an Open Door", which Anna and Hans sang when they first met. The song was so cutesy that I couldn't help cringing when I thought "That was all fake? How embarrassing."
I belobe Disney is doing this to compensate for a common criticism from the older films Which is that the main characters were boring and overshadowed by the villains that stole the show. It was a stupid thing to fixate on but ever since the era of what I call “cinema-sins-cinema” studios have been focusing on fixing the most minor things that don’t impact the films actual quality but gets memers on the internet to post about them. Stuff like the age of the beast because of the “10 years we’ve been rusting” line or the “what did the beasts family rule over”. Stuff that didn’t impact the film in a meaningful way but is the only thing they seem to want to adres
To me, it's never a ''twist'' if the filmakers don't give hints to the audience as to who the villain may be, or its motives along the way. You're a good filmaker if you can give all the hints, all the reasons in plain sight and still fool the audience. Hans gave absolutely NO hint that he was bad or had bad intentions until the very end. Same thing with many 'villains' in the list. 'Oh but you guys didn't see it coming because Hans is THAT good of a manipulator'. NO, even after meeting Anna and falling from the boat in the water, he had a GENUINE and SOFT smile looking at her running away all clumsy. There was nothing cunning about him. I'm sure the producers didn't intend for him to become a villain, and it was actually a last minute change in the script. You can't convince me otherwise.
The point of villains is to showcase there will always be not good people but I feel like now not only does the “friend” to villain trope suck for the movie but it also teaches people to be more compassionate and understanding to people when they have ill intentions or do anything wrong. One big thing I struggle with now and see many other struggle with is constantly trying to understand the bad people around us who do things wrong bc of thier past and what thier modivations actually are. When sometimes there are just bad people and they have no secret intentions. Movies and media play a big role in society and should be used to for good and making change. But when they constantly try to be forcefully progressive and bad it just makes everything worse.
I mean the world would definitely be better with more empathy, but that doesn’t mean we should completely excuse terrible actions. In fact doing it wrong is gonna result in more spite instead.
I for one have really considered King Candy/Turbo as a twist villain, more so a villain with a twist. Going back and watching the Wreck-It Ralph, King Candy was antagonistic from the start, as opposed to the likes of Hans or Bellweather, who started out as posing as friends and allys to our heroes as opposed to villains. With King Candy however, the reveal that he is Turbo serves as an explanation as to why he was so hellbent on keeping Vanellope out of the race, it doesn't take away from what was established about him, but adds onto it.
I don’t mind Bellwether. Because I think the true villain was the animal-racism? I’m sure they could have done it better, but it was partly a mystery too, which means there’s red herrings and twist endings. But I would argue that so many movies did unnecessary twist endings that it didn’t hit home
Dear god you are criminally underrated, this video was amazing and now I feel stupid for not thinking of these. I never realized how plot twist villains in modern disney was *that* broken. I always blindly watched them when I was a bit younger. Your commentary was very clear and easy to understand and I agree wholeheartedly.
I think Disney forgets that there is a way to make a villian understandable, even relatable in some situations while also making them 100% evil at the same time. For example one villain who is understandable in his actions, but is still basically evil is Shere Khan from the Jungle Book. In Shere Khans mind, he's just being a Tiger and tigers do what they do in jungle because that's the law of the jungle; but people are dangerous because they are smarter than everyone else and can legitimately destroy everything with man's fire. So he's kind of justified in wanting Mowgli dead. At the same time he's 100% a villain because mowgli is just a child and is actually adverse to using fire at all and just wants to be apart of the jungle like everyone else. Shere Khan refuses to see what everyone else sees about Mowgli and just wants all people dead. Projecting his bad experiences of people on to mowgli, essentially forcing his worst nightmare to come true because mowgli was forced to use the fire to protect himself and his friends from Shere Khan. Thus shere khan was his own worst enemy.
Anna and Elsa are the best villains in frozen - they leave their home to crazy people. They gave Hans the power when he hand none. They give everyone else the power to make fun of them when they are princesses. Everyone could be fired. So, fire them - not leave the people to die. They also gave the tolls even more power to to arrange a marriage that they selected. They made sure that everyone feared them. They rank right up there with Ursula, Maleficent, Pete the Cat, and Scar.
The important thing that has changed is not that they are bad villains but that they are bad characters. Old Disney knew we needed a larger than life CHARACTER for us to see them as villains. That's why the villains song was so freaking key. None of the new Disney baddies have any character to them... so we forget them. I have never even seen Hunchback but I sure know Hellfire.
When it comes to Disney antagonists, I think John Silver from Treasure planet takes the cake. While there is a secondary antagonist in Scroop, Silver is the main obstacle for the hero. And he's an interesting "twist" villain in that the twist is all in world, not for the audience. The movie was aware that the viewers are a third party and that we know more than the characters. It had good tension and emotional pay off, and never made Jim look dumb for trusting Silver. (He is actually super suspicious of him at first) Smart protagonist and Smart Antagonist with a secondary antagonist for that nice comeuppance payoff. Silver is unique when it comes to Disney Antagonists, and while I don't think it could or should be copied, so to speak, I think a lot of lessons could be learned from that movie when it comes to Protagonist/Antagonist dynamics and Antagonist story telling.
Disney twist villains are actually just one example of a larger writing trend you can see throughout the disney company in things like marvel's writing: the idea that you have to outsmart your audience like its a stupid game, but this pattern isn't even unique to disney because you can see it in the ending to Game of Thrones. The terrible twist villains they have can't have proper foreshadowing, because then the audience could see it coming. And if the audience can see things coming, then obviously it must be bad and stupid writing. You have to "outsmart" your audience to gain a reaction out of them, and all engagement is good engagement, even if you piss them off with poor writing decisions that come out of no where. No one can see anything coming. Actors can't even know the main plot they are acting out, they just are allowed to know what words come out of their mouth with zero context, because god forbid they TELL someone. Traditional Disney villains are well understood narratively by the audience, they know what they are getting into with the character. You know Hades and Maleficent and Ursula have bad intentions for the hero due to visual shorthand from the get go. But we can't have the audience understand things, because god forbid what if they figure it out? Why various screenwriters took up this stance with writing I have no idea. Audiences actually like it when they figure stuff out and feel clever. Actual proper storytelling with interesting plots and playing around with tropes and good foreshadowing doesn't mean the plot is dully predictable and mediocre garbage. Mistaking these things for parts of the story that make it boring and predictable seems like such a stupid mistake to do, but it keeps happening.
What really kills me about _Raya and the Last Dragon_ is that all they needed to do to make it an amazing story is have Namaari be the main character, embarking on a quest to summon Sisu, obtain the other shards, and assemble the pieces to restore the gem. Though initially being motivated by the same selfishness that her mother (and by extension the Fang tribe), she’d come to learn throughout the quest what people are capable of when they trust eachother, and at the end, she would ultimately choose to trust Raya to be the one to heal the gem - in _spite_ of her mother’s selfishness and manipulation.
It's the difference between Scar and Hans both wanting the throne but it's shown many times what scar is capable of which is why he feels more dangerous as a villain than Hans. With the old villains they show how evil they are in the new ones they tell you.
Disney has become soooooo obsessed with “redeemable villains” that they forget that fan favorite villains like Ursula & Gaston are evil through and through, have no redeeming qualities and that’s okay
When there's a large fan-theory saying that your twist villain is actually being mind-controled into villainy, you know your writers screwed up with the foreshadowing.
Maybe Disney should take this suggestion for a villain: some redeeming qualities, but the end goal is world/ universe domination, possibly revenge on the protagonist for something in the past that happened.
Disney: Making good villains is hard these days Dreamworks: Not only will we have amazing villains, we’re putting three in one movie and it’s gonna be amazing
An amazing example for just a good villain in general is Dracula from the Netflix Castlevania series. You can sympathize and understand EXACTLY why he did what he did, and most people would most likely do the same in his situation. But at the same time, you know that he needs to be stopped and the show doesn't try to shove it down your throat about how he's actually the good guy. No, while his motives are completely understandable, what he's doing is wrong and the heroes don't hesitate to put him down like some other shows might do.
Of all these villains, I still think that Bellwether works, mainly because villains in mystery movies don't have to be upfront/loud and proud about their evils (because then where's the mystery/buddy cop adventure) and because she works well as a FOIL to Judy's character. But maybe that's just me, and regardless, most of the other Disney villains in this decade definitely suck (so your main point still stands)
She would have worked better if there were any foreshadowing for her, I can't recall any moment that stood out on rewatch as something hinting that she may not be what she seems. Also, we only get less than 20 minutes with her true nature before she is arrested. I hope the Zootopia sequel is able to deliver a better villain.
Agreed. Don't get me wrong, teaching kids that even bad people are still humans who deal with the same emotions they do is a good message, but there are also people who are genuinely just irredeemable monsters. They do exist and they’re the most infamous men and women in history because of it and kids need to be taught that as well.
I don't mind if it is done right. I think the most important part for the sympathetic villains is they should be held accountable for their actions no matter what. I think it is in this aspect that many poorly written villains fail. Basically these villains should either get tragic endings or must go through a huge redemption arc to own up to their mistakes.
The thing with Big Hero 6, is that the main focus of the movie wasn't character vs character, but more character vs self. It followed Hiro's journey through grief, and Baymax's contribution to his healing. The villain wasn't the main conflict, despite appearing that way on a certain level. Sure, the writers could've come up with something a little better, but the line "That was his mistake" was used as a trigger for Hiro's pent up rage. Callaghan and the team was a distraction for him, so that he wouldn't have to confront his feelings. This line from Callaghan, as ridiculous as it was, was one of the first steps towards Hiro confronting his grief and finally accepting help.
