Disney Duster wrote: WHY should a character be more complex by having some normal or nice intentions, though? This is drama, let evil be evil.
Agreed. I like good vs. evil stories.
Disney Duster wrote: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.
Agreed. An animae called "Full Metal Alchemist" has some villains who are complex in their motivations but, nevertheless, thouroughly evil. I'm not sure who ever said that complex means "they do good and bad things" though. Many people on this thread have called the Disney version of Frollo "complex" and I doubt any of them would say that that character does anything good.[/quote]
Disney Duster wrote: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.
Agreed again. I agree that most of the characters Disney labels as such are villains, but why should, for instance, the Big Bad Wolf be considered a villain? After all, wolves have to eat something to survive, right? And Disney can even be rather inconsistent about that. For instance, in "Hocus Pocus", the talking cat is clearly intended to be one of the good guys but briefly mentions hunting mice. Why is it evil for the wolf to eat the pigs but not for the cat to eat mice?
Disney Duster wrote:Likewise, the princesses, and perhaps the princes, are intended to be pure good, almost holy. But sometimes they seem to break the rules, too,
I might sound like a broken record if I say I agree with you again, but I do. Also, if a character starts out as a villain but is redeemed by the end of the film, Disney tends to classify him as a hero. The Beast, for example, was a villain at the start of the film, imprisoning Belle's father, but he becomes heroic by the end, so Disney lists him as a hero. Likewise with Emperor Kuzco, who initally wants to demolish a bunch of people's homes just to build himself a summer home. Jack Skellington, who has Santa kidnapped but saves him in the end, is another example.
Disney Duster wrote:like Cinderella trying to hurt Lucifer, but he is named after the devil and clearly evil to be evil (he's no normal cat).
For the first time, I have to disagree. When did Cinderella ever try to hurt Lucifer? If you're talking about her asking the animals to get Bruno to chase Lucifer away, that's in defense of the mice who are wrongfully imprisoned by Lucifer, and I don't think she intended for Bruno to chase Lucifer to his supposed death (in the two direct-to-DVD sequels, he apparently is revealed to have survived).
I'm not sure what you were trying to say about Lucifer above, but remember he doesn't just want to eat the mice, he's also trying to help Lady Tremaine prevent Cinderella from getting a better life. Notice how he nods appreciatively when Lady Tremaine gives Cinderella more chores in the scene where she's introduced (untill she gets to the last chore; "see that Lucifer gets a bath") and in the scene where the mice are trying to get the blue bead neclice for Cinderella, Lucifer keeps sitting on the necklice. Likewise, when the mice bring the key to release Cinderella, Lucifer could eat the mice and ignore the key but instead buts a bowl over the mouse with the key and refuses to let him out.