The Ridiculous Motives Of Disney Villains!

[KubrickFan]

I don't think that this is a dumb topic at all! I was excited when I read the title!

You have Frollo, for example, who I think many would agree is one of the most complex villains. He wants Esmeralda for himself, but if he can't have her, then he wants her killed! It's so....twisted. (Had to insert a Jasmine reference, apparently!) It shows that Frollo doesn't care for Esmeralda...he just wants her for unpure reasons. Which is the contrast in him- he's supposed to be this holy guy, but yet he is very unpure. And him wanting to kill the gypsies and baby Quasimodo- a priest wanting to kill innocent people?

Frollo's a judge, not a priest .
I think Frollo is rather jealous. If he can't have Esmeralda, nobody can. Of course, he's also very much a racist, so falling for someone who's race he despises is very complex.
I think that's why Frollo is one of the best villains. A lot of other Disney villains from the 90's mostly had greed, money and power as their motives. Frollo is powerful, yes, but he doesn't want to rule the world or something. He just wants the girl and will do anything to find her, even burning down Paris.

[blackcauldron85]

I was confusing the movie and the book apparently. I knew that. I don't know why I don't include Frollo when I mention favorite villains...I don't think I mention him, anyway. He really is a complex one, which is interesting...

[BelleGirl]

I actually thought that Bowler Hat Guy's motives were very believable and very understandable. It was one of the rare cases where I believed that a villain had a right to go after the hero.

But his fate is also a bit different from other Disney villains: in the end he is redeemed, while most other Disney villains meet a bad end. When all is said and done, the Bowler hat man isn't really a villain after all.

I also like to remark that most of the villains shallow motives are according to the original fairy tale/book Disney based their movies on.

Creatures like Monstro from Pinocchio or the rat from Lady and the Tramp I wouldn't really call villains, because they are acting according to their nature (and in Monstro's case, because he's provoked) and not out of a sort of malicious intent. You could better call them 'dangerous' or 'threats'.

And as already has been pointed out, in real life the motivations of villains can be just as superficial and shallow as in any Disney film. Hell, I know that there are people who kill others just because they get a kick out of it! (luckily there are not many)

[2099net]

If he can't have Esmeralda, nobody can. Of course, he's also very much a racist, so falling for someone who's race he despises is very complex.

Without going into this too much (for obvious reasons) this is actually fairly common - I believe its an form of what's known as "sexual racism". Often men who are racist develop an unhealthy fixation on females of a differing race - typically because they can be viewed as "unpure" and as a result the man feels as though he has less obligation to be... shall we say... "civilised"? ...in the romance.

I suspect Frollo simply wants an excuse for his own confusing and "forbidden" sexual urges, and Esmaeralda is that excuse.

Its another reason why Hunchback is such a good film (yes, even with "A Guy Like You") because its a subtext that's there, but its so buried, its only there for those who can see it.

And its another reason why Frollo's character and motivations are way more complex than simple jealousy. Don't forget in addition to all this, he is also hypocrytcially forcing his moral standards on others - the same standards he himself seemingly struggles to uphold, but finds the need to blame on Esmaeralda for his failings.

[Super Aurora]

I guess what I'm (and I'm sure Neal too) trying to say is that most disney films show a very black and white view point to things. Good vs evil, etc. When It's starts to be used often but in different variations, it starts to look stale and un-intimidating as a villain. That's not to say they are horrible villains, it just that they don't give off an awe, or interests, or fear of the character (at least for me) compared to other stuff i've read/watched. This maybe because Disney films are family oriented films so the level of complexity is dumbed down. Hunchback of Notre Dame was a black sheep in the usual Disney standards

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Creatures like Monstro from Pinocchio or the rat from Lady and the Tramp I wouldn't really call villains, because they are acting according to their nature (and in Monstro's case, because he's provoked) and not out of a sort of malicious intent. You could better call them 'dangerous' or 'threats'.

Well actually with Monstro, he is described in the movie and made out to be a whale who enjoys killing. Which, compared to most Whale's isn't really acting according to their nature (unless he's an oddly colored Orca ). I mean, don't most whales just eat plankton etc.? So, as I said Monstro could still be called a villain since he acts differently from how most whales act.

[ajmrowland]

Frollo is powerful, yes, but he doesn't want to rule the world or something.

Sure, he just wants everybody to have the same views he has, and live life the way he believes it should be lived.

[quote-"BelleGirl"]When all is said and done, the Bowler hat man isn't really a villain after all.[/quote] Yeah, his hat ended up being more evil than he was.

[Disney Duster]

Something everyone here needs to know is that often in Walt Disney's movies, the belief that some people really were evil was held. That is why they called her the Evil Queen or the Wicked Stepmother. That is why Lady Tremaine had a cat named Lucifer, Maleficent had a raven named Diablo, and she called on the powers of Hell. That is why Lady Tremaine's eyes glowed.

I am not saying Disney didn't consider the possibility that their evil characters could one day be redeemed, be enlightened, or somehow become good. But until then, underneath them trying to be social with both good and bad beings on earth, they were evil, or normal people with some evil intentions, which made them evil.

But also in Walt's days they may have put a lot of complexity in their villains that many people miss. In The Disney Villain, they say Walt Disney was excited by the complexity of the Evil Queen. Perhaps she was just complex for back then, or she was just complex in his mind, but his intent was to make her complex.

The Evil Queen doesn't plan on killing Snow White until she sees the Prince falling in love with her. The Queen wanted the Prince for herself, as they planned, and it kind of got cut from the movie in detail, but it was still intended in her character.

WHY should a character be more complex by having some normal or nice intentions, though? This is drama, let evil be evil. I never got why complex meant "they do good and bad things". You can be complex just by how you developed your crazy obsessions with terrible things, or how you got to the point of doing your most evil act. Like the Queen obviously was evil from the beginning, but she at first just tried to hide Snow White's beauty in rags. Then, she discovered she was fairest in the land. Then, she saw that she got the Prince, whom she also wanted. She finally decided "the girl has got to go."

Super Aurora, Lady Tremaine stopped Cinderella from getting to the ball until a magical fairy had to come and make it possible, and almost stopped her from getting downstairs and marrying the prince and having a good life (she was locked in a very tall tower, you saw Lucifer fall to his doom). The narrator also says she was "abused" and "humiliated" and "forced" to become a servant. We aren't quite sure what the stepmother did or would have done, and Cinderella didn't have many options to have a better life or a life at all outside of staying in the rich home she was born in, or moving in with someone kind, like the Prince.

Not that I need her to do horrible things that threaten Cinderella's health or life. I think it's evil enough to make someone feel unworthy, have them do everything you ask and hard work all day every day, and not let them have a chance at real happiness. Torture over death.

As for Maleficent, she and the good fairies seem to have been born into their powers, their magic can only do good or evil (or so they say, Merryweather tries, and perhaps succeeds, breaking those rules). Maleficent is like an evil demon from Hell, complete with dead-looking skin and yellow eyes. If that's not the case, then she may have been a fairy that purposely took in the powers of Hell, the powers of evil. She really is in it for the joy of evil, she is purposely working with the forces of evil just to do evil. She's "The Mistress of all Evil", she's not supposed to be like a regular person.

Neal, with Lordgenome, you gave an example of a villain who turns out not to really be a villain. Or he was a villain who became not a villain.

We are talking about real evil villains here. In Walt's films, that whale in Pinocchio and the rat in Lady and the Tramp are supposed to be evil. If you need any more than that, look how they go after things they normally wouldn't eat, a father and his wooden puppet, and a baby. I don't know about the hunter in Bambi being evil, but they sure as hell intended him to be the villain of the picture. I think generally, anyone who opposes the main characters in the film are the villains, whether they have good or natural tendencies like "they need to eat", or not. Disney clearly says these are the villains, for dramatic story's sake. Walt loved the idea of the forces of good battling with the forces of evil. Battling completely evil intent, battling something out to get you because it's pure evil, is a more scary, challenging, and heroic act. Likewise, the princesses, and perhaps the princes, are intended to be pure good, almost holy. But sometimes they seem to break the rules, too, like Cinderella trying to hurt Lucifer, but he is named after the devil and clearly evil to be evil (he's no normal cat!).

That said, I actually read that during Walt's days they gave their villains pets as a way to demonstrate they do have a good, or soft caring side. But it might be more like they have cares and joys...from evil. Like Maleficent laughs and obviously gets joy from evil. But the pets are also supposed to be like familiars, demons in the form of animals, usually given to witches, but Lucifer is the stepmother's familar, too. So they do have cares, and give good treatment, but to evil creatures like them. I guess the stepmother treatng her evil daughters well could be part of that, though the stepmother was jealous of Cinderella's charm, and I always thought charm was a good thing, like kindness.

And they don't hate people or do bad for unknown reasons or no reason at all, they do it for reasons that most people wouldn't do as bad as them on, but they still have reasons.

And yes, some real people in the world really do evil to others just because they like doing certain things that are evil!

tsom Maleficent definately would have still cursed Aurora no matter what. If you notice, after what Merryweather said, she pretended to go, hoping the Queen would say something. She pretends to be nice and sociable, all the while always planning to do harm. Just like when her goons told her they were still searching in cradles for a baby, she at first pretended it was funny (though some of it was probably genuine "I can't believe they did that!" crazy laughter), and then electrocuted them! But GOOD catch pointing out evidence in her dialogue that she views herself as so much higher than everyone who came to the party, and that shows more of her character, desires, and motives.

[KubrickFan]

Frollo is powerful, yes, but he doesn't want to rule the world or something.

Sure, he just wants everybody to have the same views he has, and live life the way he believes it should be lived.

Don't know if that was sarcastic or not, but anyway. I don't think he wants to convert anyone, at least in the film. Yes, he tries to give (force?) Quasimodo the same views he has, but that's what a parent (even a surrogate) does.
I believe that if Disney hadn't made him a bit too villainy (evil grinning, monologuing, etc.) he would have been one of the best villains ever. Now he's at the top of Disney movies, and that still ain't bad.

[Goliath]

Who the hell is 'Bowler Hat Guy'?

There *are* complex Disney villians. Frollo and Tremaine (who goes without a name in the Dutch version, by the way, she's just "the evil stepmother") already got mentioned. And I would include Ratcliff, not for complexity, but he sure is 'realistic'. But, compared to actual history, he's actually kind to the Indians. A lot of people say Prince John is too much of a slapstick-character to be a convincing villain, but his childish manners and motivations for doing harm to his subjects remind me of some real-life idiotic dictators, all around the world.

A lot of you mention Malificent. That tale is based on the ancient Greek epic poem the Iliad, in which Eris, godess of discord, is not invited to the wedding of Peleus and Thethis. This leads to a series of events which will ultimately cause the Trojan War to begin.

[blackcauldron85]

Who the hell is 'Bowler Hat Guy'?

From Meet the Robinsons.

[KubrickFan]

Who the hell is 'Bowler Hat Guy'?

You haven't seen Meet The Robinsons? You should see it, it was pretty good.

[Goliath]

Who the hell is 'Bowler Hat Guy'?

You haven't seen Meet The Robinsons? You should see it, it was pretty good.

I haven't seen a CGI-film since The Incredibles. After a while, they all start to look alike. (I mean speaking about plot and story.)

[KubrickFan]

I haven't seen a CGI-film since The Incredibles. After a while, they all start to look alike. (I mean speaking about plot and story.)

Well, that's no different from the 2D animated movies . But Ratatouille and Wall-E were great, in my opinion. You should check them out.

[Goliath]

I don't agree with you about 2D vs. CGI films, but that's a different discussion altogether.

I forgot to mention anoter Disney villain who is not one-dimensional like most other villains, and that's David Xanatos from Gargoyles. I always thought he was a rather complex, intruiging villain.

[Super Aurora]

WHY should a character be more complex by having some normal or nice intentions, though? This is drama, let evil be evil. I never got why complex meant "they do good and bad things".

I don't think you understand when we mean by complex villain. It has nothing to do with doing "normal or good intentions" or "they do good or bad things" It has to do with the development of the character which also brings in a grey area. Here's an example:

[graphic spoilers]
In Black Lagoon a manga and anime, there was an arc revolving around these little twins named Hansel and Gretal. Despite their cute appearances, these two are psycho serial killers. Yes, they will kill for joy and spite, and even stick 3ft nails slowly into people while enjoying it. And all this came from being raised and forced as victims of child porn/snuff, where they had to kill other kids to survived. Of course this brings them insane mental issues as they become.
[end spoiler]

Now what they done is mess up and "evil" but the development of how this comes to be is what makes these kids great villains.

Now I know Disney would never go that route in million years LOL, but they can make interesting and complex villains that make the character more believable and fascinating. Frollo is accomplishment on that and why many disney fans like Frollo.

The narrator also says she was "abused" and "humiliated" and "forced" to become a servant. We aren't quite sure what the stepmother did or would have done.

That was one of the things that puzzled me cause looking at the way she dress and the room she'd in it seem more like she a hire servent than a slave. Hell, Cindy should of wore the rags that Snow White wore. That would make better implication to that narration and she should lived in a barn(which I believe they have too) rather than a little room. Not great room but she did have a bed, dresser, and roof.

As for Maleficent, she and the good fairies seem to have been born into their powers,

Where's that comes from??

She really is in it for the joy of evil, she is purposely working with the forces of evil just to do evil. She's "The Mistress of all Evil", she's not supposed to be like a regular person.

You would think that she be much more occupied in terrorizing the entire kingdom with force and a deadly army of skeletons or giants beast and yet she has only an army of little minions and only focused on her quest to kill the princess. Especially those 16 years duration. Above that, the way she wants her to die was a prick on the spinning wheel? I'd call that a blessing way to be killed rather than some thing more brutal or gruesome. For someone who declare herself the "Mistress of all Evil", her evil intention and forces aren't as intimidating as it would seem. The Horn King had a better "Forces of evil" than Mally did. I mean if I saw the two army forces, I would shit my pants over the zombie skeletons.

We are talking about real evil villains here. In Walt's films, that whale in Pinocchio and the rat in Lady and the Tramp are supposed to be evil. If you need any more than that, look how they go after things they normally wouldn't eat, a father and his wooden puppet, and a baby. I don't know about the hunter in Bambi being evil, but they sure as hell intended him to be the villain of the picture.

Rats if desperately hungry would eat or attack something defenseless. and seriously they only had a minor appearance that they were only used as an obstacle conflict for the good guy. Might as well call the dog catcher in Lady and the Tramp an EVIL villain even though he just doing his job. or the bear in The Fox and the hound

I think generally, anyone who opposes the main characters in the film are the villains, whether they have good or natural tendencies like "they need to eat", or not.

This is one of the mentalities I fucking hate. I much as I love Disney, They used this idea like beating a dead horse.

Walt loved the idea of the forces of good battling with the forces of evil. Battling completely evil intent, battling something out to get you because it's pure evil, is a more scary, challenging, and heroic act. Likewise, the princesses, and perhaps the princes, are intended to be pure good, almost holy.

This whole idea is what brings exactly back to Neal's opening post and why they feel very one dimensional. Though super hero comics do this too but at least with them they give much more interesting the villains (and even the good guys) some interesting chemistry and grey questioning about the boundaries of moral standings(ala Watchmen). Although comics have long duration to do so unlike disney movies so that's bit unfair comparison.

I never like the plain ol' black and white concept of good vs. evil. It's boring and overdone. When I watch some of the disney movies I root for the bad guy than the hero. Because "Good is dumb".

And yes, some real people in the world really do evil to others just because they like doing certain things that are evil!

Yes but there is much more complexity to what makes the man do so or enjoy it. Any psychologist would tell you that. The Trill Killer boys of Brooklyn in the early 50's did same thing: Beat and kill girls and homeless people because they get a kick out of it. But what was also revealed was that they were influence by a book called Nights of Horror(art was by Joe Shuster). This leads to whole comic book censorship but that's a story for another topic.

What I'm saying was that even though what they did was the pure evil intentions they had background for doing so or whatever which when I read about it intrigue me.

I'm done responding to you cause arguing with you is like arguing to a brick wall. Thanks Escapy.

I forgot to mention anoter Disney villain who is not one-dimensional like most other villains, and that's David Xanatos from Gargoyles. I always thought he was a rather complex, intruiging villain.

Oh yea he definitely awesome. But I think this is talking about the animated Disney classics. But Yea, Xanatos is definitely great character and antagonist. I often see him just like Lex Luthor who also an awesome bad guy.

[Disney Duster]

Most everyone's examples of "better", more "complex" villains are from comics or TV shows or two hour movies. You pretty much need to make the characters do lots and have lots of backstory for the long arcs those have.

And still, having backstory is just how you became a villain. But you can be a complex villain by doing and thinking complex things, like what finally drove you to think a girl would steal your power or potential partner, or the ways you figure to kill that girl...like a certain evil queen.

But back to Super Aurora.

Well, in Cinderella's case, the abuse by the stepmother could have been verbal, psychological, or emotional. Even if it was physical, it doesn't matter. It could be seen as beating a child who was disobeying. Cinderella was young, and belonged to her stepmother. The stepmother likes to pretend that she is not so bad, or even pretend that it's right for Cinderella to do all the work (punishing her for putting a mouse in her sister's room, etc.). Cinderella tries to be part of the family, as she demonstrates by getting her stepmother to let her go to the ball as long as she does what she asks. The stepmother is a little (pretend) nicer and less clearly evil and dominating than the Queen. Cinderella wears work clothes only to work, seen as her stepsisters are lazy and her stepmother decides to give her all the chores. She has to live with these people! She can be called a servant in her own home, but she tries to ignore that label and hopes they'll eventually go easy on her or someday get out. It is only when her dress gets ripped she truly looks like she's in rags. You don't understand the complexity of Cinderella it seems...

As for Maleficent, she and the good fairies seem to have been born into their powers,

Where's that comes from??

Maleficent and the Good Fairies are fairies, and fairies are born with their powers!

And for all we know, Maleficent was doing other little evil things while searching for Aurora. Like "sending a frost" like the fairies said, though I know ruining flowers would be too small for you. But you also must realize, Maleficent was torturing the kingdom for 16 years because they didn't know what would happen to the princess and still feared the curse. The narrator said the whole kingdom went into misery along with the king and queen.

Animals may do certain things, but the rat was made to look very evil and have extra glowing red eyes. He was intended to be an evil rat, not a normal rat. And he showed up in the film more than once. The dog catcher is seen as more of a goofy, maybe mean man, almost like Aunt Sarah. It is pretty easy to tell who Walt Disney intended to be the truly evil villains and who not.

And the Fox and the Hound was made after Walt died, by a new team that wanted to do that grey area villain stuff anyway.

I find the idea of pure evil that will stop at nothing to do evil to be scarier and not boring. It's going to do evil to you no matter what, it won't stop.

I don't really know how a backtsory would even help the climaxes where the point is, this evil can kill you, and it wants to kill you and not stop because it is evil, and you need to defeat it, and only good can. That's what really matters. In Sleeping Beauty's case, Maleficent really is pretty much a mysterious demon from Hell that can only be stopped by good. And maybe you hate that, but that's what she was intended to be. She can have a complicated personality or do complicated things, but she's a pure force of evil. I think the idea of going up against almost the devil himself is pretty thrilling. I don't need a backstory to enjoy that, it would only complicate things anyway.

As for the complex psychological ways people become evil, yes, and Disney has never said those aren't the reasons their characters are evil. Of course their villains had complex ways of how they got to be who they are. They just decided not to explain it, they just decided it's not important to know. Walt always intended the evil queen to be complex, but you don't need to know how she got so vain and evil, she's a mystery that makes her more frightening.

Background may be intrigueing, but it's not necessary and can get in the way.

[Goliath]

@ Superaurora

Well, the title says "Disney villains", so that covers Xanatos also. I like him as a villain, because unlike so many other Disney bad guys, he's so unpredictable. I can't count the times he had me caught off guard and he pulled something that I totally didn't see coming. Often he would even have a surprise in store the very last seconds of an episode.

[Super Aurora]

@ Superaurora

Well, the title says "Disney villains", so that covers Xanatos also. I like him as a villain, because unlike so many other Disney bad guys, he's so unpredictable. I can't count the times he had me caught off guard and he pulled something that I totally didn't see coming. Often he would even have a surprise in store the very last seconds of an episode.

Yea I definitely agree. Thats another thing about disney villains that tends to dislike. They are too damn predictable. Which also support my dislike for the whole good vs evil and good always overcome evil. BORING.

[Marky_198]

It's just like in the real world.

Bad/evil people exist. And they don't always have a motive, they are just evil.

They might not see themselves that way, but they are.


This reminds me of what Oprah always says; Everyone is beautiful.
You just have to find the beauty within.
Well....I think some people are actually not. I know everyone wants to be it, but it's just not the case.

Anyway, I'm really interested in the "good versus evil" thing, because I think there is a Jekyll&Hyde in all of us in a way.
And NO-ONE sees himself as evil, while many people clearly are, which is weird and interesting.