The Ridiculous Motives Of Disney Villains!

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
BelleGirl
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
Location: The Netherlands, The Hague

Post by BelleGirl »

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:I think Madeum Madeusa is the only Disney character that didn't have a silly motive, she was just a psychopathic nut case who didn't care who she had to step on to get her perious Devils Eye.
Well, wouldn't you call that greed, and isn't that a motive of many Disney villains? (Clayton, Edgar, Cruella De Vil - longing for a fur coat made of dalmatian puppies skin I call greed; and I think Curella is a psychopatic nutcase as well!) :lol:
Image

See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: The Ridiculous Motives Of Disney Villains!

Post by 411314 »

Neal wrote:The motives of Disney's villains are all rather superficial. There's no complexity to their evil, just shallow desires.

When you see someone prettier, do you want to kill them? Or when something doesn't go your way, does that mean you go off and torture innocent people?

I guess it does for these villains.

I love Disney's animated classics, but the motives of the villains are shallow and ridiculous!
Well, some real evil people have shallow, rediculous motives as well. For example

Wanda Holloway:

"Some other girl is competing with my daughter for a spot on their school cheerleading squad. I must hire a hitman to kill the other girl's mother so the other girl will drop out of the competition!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanda_Holloway


John Hinckley Jr.:

"I've got to impress Jodie Foster somehow, so I think I'll muder President Regan!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.


There are also real world examples of some of the villains' motives.

Neal wrote:The Hunter, Bambi:

"I love the taste of venison! I must kill that deer!"
That's quite common in the real world. It's called "hunting". Some people (called fishermen) also say "I love the taste fish! I must kill those fish!" Most of our society says "I love the taste of beef, ham, and chicken! Slaughterhouses must kill cows, pigs and chicken (respectivelly) for me!"

NOTE: This is NOT to say that I approve of such practices. I'm ambivalent about meat-eating in principle, but I'm vegetarian and semi-vegan because of the vicious animal cruelty that happens in our slaughterhouses (there's a video of this at youtube called "Meet Your Meat"). My point is just that the idea of someone doing such a thing isn't "rediculous" at all.
Neal wrote:The Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland

"I always have to be right. Anyone who disagrees with me must die!"
So says not only the Queen of Hearts, but many evil real-world dictators as well. See, for example, what happened in China when several people voiced their disagreement with their government at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiannamen_Square_Massacre.


Neal wrote:Cruella De Vil, One Hundred and One Dalmatians

"I want a new fur coat. All your puppies are belong to us."
Again, the idea of a fur coat isn't rediculous, but rather a sad truth of the real world. Most Americans, even those who wear coats made from other animals, wouldn't want a dog fur coat, but niether would most of us, including meat eaters, eat dogs, wheras many Koreans DO eat dogs. Thus, it seems entirely plausible (though I have no idea if it's true or not) that there are people in the world who wouldn't mind a dog fur coat.
Neal wrote:Captain Hook, Peter Pan

"That wippersnapper is in my front yard again! I'll kill him - that'll teach him!"
Hook wants to kill Pan not because Pan was "in his front yard again", but because Pan cut off Hook's hand. Who wouldn't be angry at someone that cut off their hand?
Last edited by 411314 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Post by 411314 »

BelleGirl wrote:
toonaspie wrote: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.
Although, given that it's a time travel story and Louis "undoes" the event that led Goob to become Bowler Hat Guy, you could say that Bowler Hat Guy does "meet a bad end" because he dissapears from existence, though we don't see that happening on screen. Still, that may be a far less painful death then what most Disney villains get.
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Post by 411314 »

BelleGirl wrote:About captain Hook: I thought his hand was eaten by the crocodile??
Pan cut off Hook's hand and then fed it to the crocodile.
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Post by 411314 »

2099net wrote:
KubrickFan wrote: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.
I think it's more then just an "excuse". I think he's used to having power over others and feels that Esmerallda has power over him because being around or thinking about her causes him to feel things that he thinks he shouldn't be feeling. Thus, he feels wants to force Esmerallda to be his sex slave or burn because if he can do that, then he'll feel powerful again since he's controlling the one person who he thinks has power over him (of course, since Esmarellda didn't decide to arouse Frollo, it doesn't really make sense that he blames her for his feelings, but if his motives were reasonable, he wouldn't be the villain).
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Disney's Dimensional Villains

Post by 411314 »

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.
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Post by 411314 »

Goliath wrote:Who the hell is 'Bowler Hat Guy'?
The villain of a CGI film Disney made without Pixar called "Meet the Robinsons". You can read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_The_Robinsons

I highly reccomend the film, by the way. It's a lot of fun.
User avatar
Cordy_Biddle
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1597
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:02 am
Location: the balcony of the Bijou...

Post by Cordy_Biddle »

I can understand Maleficent's feeling "out of the loop", but seriously, Aurora's christening looked like a complete snooze-fest, and wasn't worth embarking on a full-blown vendetta. :P
I'm just valentine candy and boxing-gloves!

My DVD Collection :
http://classic-movieguy.dvdaf.com/
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Post by 411314 »

Super Aurora wrote:Another thing I notice is the villain always have to be something people always think as a villain: Pirates, Cats(Shere Kahn, Siamese twin, lucifer, Prince John and Scar), tall dark dressed supernaturals(Mally,Ursula, queen, Jafar, and Hades.)
I don't know of anyone who thinks of cats as villains, but otherwise, I see what you mean. It may be because Disney is among those people. In other words, they also think of pirates and "tall dark dressed supernaturals" as villains. Of course, they did recently make a trilogy of movies where there are good pirates, but I doubt they actually believed it.
Super Aurora wrote:Hell, Hades isn't even suppose to be evil begin with which support my claim even more.
I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Only about 5-10 minutes into the film, one of the girls narrating says "if there's one god you didn't want to get steamed up, it's Hades, cause he had an evil plan". How much more explicitly could the film idicate that he's evil right from the start?
Super Aurora wrote:Why could Hera be the bad gal? Cause she's Zeus' wife? A woman? what what was the reason?
I don't know. I doubt "cause she's a woman" is the answer though, given the number of female disney villains. Maybe they thought it would make Zeus look stupid (if he didn't know she was evil) or evil himslef (if he did know) to have him married to the villaian. On a side note, though, from what I vaguely remember reading and hearing, the Hera of greek religion was quite nasty. Anyway, I think the reason Disney chose Hades as the villain is because he's the god of death. Disney probably figured they could easily get audiences to hate the god of death because almost nobody wants to die.
Last edited by 411314 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

411314 wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:Hell, Hades isn't even suppose to be evil begin with which support my claim even more.
I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Only about 5-10 minutes into the film, one of the girls narrating says "if there's one god you didn't want to get steamed up, it's Hades, cause he had an evil plan". How much more explicitly could the film idicate that he's evil right from the start?
I was referring the the original Hades from the mythology. He wasn't good nor evil. He was neutral. Disney changing the villain from Hera to Hades was outright predictable and thus support my opinion of Disney's trend on bad guys.

also why the fuck did you hex-a-posted? You could of put all of that in one post
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
IagoZazu
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:50 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: The Ridiculous Motives Of Disney Villains!

Post by IagoZazu »

Neal wrote:
Maleficent , Sleeping Beauty

"You didn't invite me to your party! I'm going to kill your daughter, now!"
I doubt not getting the invite was the only reason why she cursed Aurora. The King and Queen wouldn't have been dumb enough to allow the mistress of all evil to come over to their palace and see their new daughter, and Maleficent would have thought as such. That's why she acted a little sarcastic when they asked her if she was upset over not getting the invite before she made the curse. She probably always despised King Stefan and his kingdom. She was going to do it eventually.
Say no to moldy, disgusting crackers!
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 14016
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Re: Disney's Dimensional Villains

Post by Disney Duster »

411314, I think I will have to learn your name, it will be hard to remember a set of numbers...!

The Beast was not intended to be a villain, audiences just thought he was, it is the audience and individual person who would call him one, while most of the people who worked on Beauty and the Beast would never have classified him as a villain.

As for Cinderella, she hurt Lucifer in order to defend the mice. What did she think Bruno was going to do to him? If Lucifer hadn't gone out the window he probably would have been chewed up. Cinderella also was going to hit him with a broom for dirtying her floor. Also Walt Disney thought cats were evil, even though plenty of films had innocent, good cats, he generally thought of cats as evil, as I read many times. Villains that fell to their doom were probably supposed to always be taken as dead, and you can not count the direct to video sequels whenever talking about the original films unless the original people who worked on the original film also worked on the sequels.

When I said Lucifer was evil, no normal cat, that is what I meant, that he tried to make Cinderella miserable, torment the good guys, not just do normal cat things.

As for Maleficent, yea, she had an ego. If no one invited her, the powerful mistress of all evil, to the biggest thing in the kingdom, which, no matter how boring, was a new royal in the kingdom and heir to the throne, they are going down!
Image
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16239
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: Disney's Dimensional Villains

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Disney Duster wrote: The Beast was not intended to be a villain, audiences just thought he was, it is the audience and individual person who would call him one, while most of the people who worked on Beauty and the Beast would never have classified him as a villain.
Actually, he is in The Disney Villain. The film, and the creators, obviously didn't want him to be the villain who you remembered at the end of the film, but he was certainly intended to be a villain at the beginning. The book refers to how he was all too willing to allow Maurice to die because he felt justified in doing something so heinous (all villains feel justified in what they're doing, btw). It isn't until Belle trades her life for her father's that the Beast realizes he's not very "comfortable" being the villain (so says Glen Keane, who animated him, I think). And he grows out of it. Doesn't mean he wasn't a villain at one point, though.

The audience, I think, wouldn't consider Beast the villain by the end either. But at the beginning, they would think, as the creators clearly wanted or expected them to, that Beast should be the villain by stock Disney standards. Which is where the praise for B&tB's "complexity" comes from, when Beast becomes the prince.
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 14016
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Disney Villains and their Motives

Post by Disney Duster »

Hm. Well...that touches on something bugs me, that apparently changing from evil to good is complex, and somehow the Beast had kindness inside all along...

I never thought he was going to let Maurice die, I mean, in the original story he said he would kill him (I think) but in Disney's he merely imprisons him, and then Belle is imprisoned in his place.

Whatever Glen Keane. I still think Beauty and the Beast is good but that interpretation...what the. I think I'm going to believe the Beast was actually always a good guy and anger just made him do some mean things, but he'd never kill anybody...unless that curse really, really upset him...

Oh, and I think villains thinking they are justified actually would make them less villainous. You don't think you are being the villain, you think you are doing what if just. I guess that makes them more complex, too.
Image
User avatar
KubrickFan
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:22 am

Re: Disney Villains and their Motives

Post by KubrickFan »

Disney Duster wrote:Hm. Well...that touches on something bugs me, that apparently changing from evil to good is complex, and somehow the Beast had kindness inside all along...

I never thought he was going to let Maurice die, I mean, in the original story he said he would kill him (I think) but in Disney's he merely imprisons him, and then Belle is imprisoned in his place.

Whatever Glen Keane. I still think Beauty and the Beast is good but that interpretation...what the. I think I'm going to believe the Beast was actually always a good guy and anger just made him do some mean things, but he'd never kill anybody...unless that curse really, really upset him...
Well, he pretty much left Maurice to die in that tower. Look how bad he looked when Belle got to see him. And he was an old man too.
If the Beast just has anger issues that would make him a weaker character. Just think, either he's actually bad and Belle made him change his ways, or he's just a spoiled little kid who throws a tantrum when he doesn't gets his way. The second is much more compelling, if you ask me.
Image
User avatar
Escapay
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 12562
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by Escapay »

The problem with Disney Villains is that they seem to *need* to be portrayed as completely evil, so that the viewer can immediately say, "Oh, okay, that's the villain!" and check it off from the "Disney Formula" list.

When you get a movie like Beauty and the Beast (faults and all) there really is no clearly-defined "Disney" villain that's common throughout the whole movie.

In the first half of the movie, Gaston is simply a spurned suitor who doesn't get what he wants so it's hardly worth the moniker of "villain". Beast on the other hand, is shown to be merciless and uncaring. From the get-go we're told he's not a nice guy. He's spoiled, selfish, unkind, and is punished for it. When we see him again, he imprisons an old man for trespassing, then exchanges the old man for his daughter in a prisoner exchange rather than just let her take him home. But by the time he retrieves Belle from the wolves and she brings him back to the castle, he starts changing that he eventually becomes the hero in the second half of the film. It's the first nice thing he does for someone (help Belle fight the wolves) and is the catalyst for his change.

Also, in the second half of the movie, Gaston's actions now make him the "villain" in the audience's eyes. He tries to have Maurice committed, leads a lynch mob to the castle, and fights with the Beast and dealing a fatal blow before falling to his death. And as bad as all these actions are, they're pretty tame compared to the evils of other Disney villains.

There's no consistently evil presence like other Disney movies. You don't have a Maleficent or a Ratigan or anything. No character in the film who functions from beginning to end as a villain. It's probably why I love Beauty and the Beast so much. The characters are not so archetypal as earlier Disney ones, even though they can still use some development. But it's one of the few Disney films with no clearly-defined villain, and it succeeds and fails because of it. Who do you root for? Who do you boo and hiss at? It's up to the audience to decide rather than be told, making it both a risky move and a poorly-thought move.

albert
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion? :p

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
Dragonlion
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:19 pm

Post by Dragonlion »

In a book of mine called Disney Dossiers, the author Jeff Kurti has some interesting analysis on the Disney villains' motives.

Such as Lady Tremaine:
"Her complete selfishness engendered a remarkable talent for deviousness and manipulation. While she realizes that Anastasia and Drizella are clumsy, unattractive, spoiled, and charmless, she nevertheless views her daughters as a means to her own status and wealth."

And Maleficent:
"Maleficent is often cited as one of the favorite Disney villains, but she is triumph of style over substance. She uses her strong presence to keep people at a distance, so they won't realize that she has no emotional core and lacks self-esteem. Her incentives are neither very clear nor very rational, In essence she is an angry loner, but she has spent a large portion of her life ina snit because she didn't get invited to a social event--Princess Aurora's royal santification. Maleficent must be seen to feel signifigant, so not receiving an invitation to Aurora's first court apperance was a slight that cut her quite deeply."
User avatar
Margos
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA

Post by Margos »

Escapay wrote:There's no consistently evil presence like other Disney movies. You don't have a Maleficent or a Ratigan or anything. No character in the film who functions from beginning to end as a villain. It's probably why I love Beauty and the Beast so much. The characters are not so archetypal as earlier Disney ones, even though they can still use some development. But it's one of the few Disney films with no clearly-defined villain, and it succeeds and fails because of it. Who do you root for? Who do you boo and hiss at? It's up to the audience to decide rather than be told, making it both a risky move and a poorly-thought move.
It's funny, that's one of the several reasons I like "Brother Bear!"
http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com

^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
User avatar
Margos
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA

Post by Margos »

Escapay wrote:There's no consistently evil presence like other Disney movies. You don't have a Maleficent or a Ratigan or anything. No character in the film who functions from beginning to end as a villain. It's probably why I love Beauty and the Beast so much. The characters are not so archetypal as earlier Disney ones, even though they can still use some development. But it's one of the few Disney films with no clearly-defined villain, and it succeeds and fails because of it. Who do you root for? Who do you boo and hiss at? It's up to the audience to decide rather than be told, making it both a risky move and a poorly-thought move.
It's funny, that's one of the several reasons I like "Brother Bear!" And maybe that's why some people don't like it.... It's basically a typical Native American tale in structure, so there really isn't a specific "villain," which gives our contemporary American audiences no one to rally against through the whole film....
http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com

^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
411314
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Disney's Dimensional Villains

Post by 411314 »

Disney Duster wrote:The Beast was not intended to be a villain, audiences just thought he was, it is the audience and individual person who would call him one, while most of the people who worked on Beauty and the Beast would never have classified him as a villain.
Fictional or not, it's a person's evil actions that make them a villain. At the begining of the film, the Beast's behavior was quite villainous, though he did become a hero later on.
Disney Duster wrote:As for Cinderella, she hurt Lucifer in order to defend the mice.
That's what I said.
Disney Duster wrote:What did she think Bruno was going to do to him?
Perhaps just chase him around for a while. My family's dog used to chase our cats, yet the cats survived. Or perhaps she didn't think about what Bruno would do to Lucifer because she was too panicked and desperate to think straight. Or perhaps she would have stopped Bruno after being freed if Lucifer hadn't jumped out the window first, or perhaps she thought Lucifer could outrun Bruno (all she really needed was for Lucifer to run away so the mice could give her the key). I just never got the impression that Cinderella wanted Lucifer dead, though I guess I can't point to any concrete evidence against it. Maybe I'm mistaken or it's left to subjective interpretation.
Disney Duster wrote: If Lucifer hadn't gone out the window he probably would have been chewed up.
Again, not if Lucifer could outrun Bruno.
Disney Duster wrote:Cinderella also was going to hit him with a broom for dirtying her floor.


I'd forgotten that. Most Disney heroes aren't exactly perfect, though. Aladdin, for instance, lies to Jasmine about who he is for much of the film, Pinnochio is irresponsible for much of his film, Quasimodo at one point considers not trying to help Pheobus save the hiding Gypsys because he's afraid of Frollo and bitter about Esmarelda's feelings for Phoebus, etc. I guess Cinderella lost her temper knowing she'd have to start her chore all over again because of Lucifer's actions.
Disney Duster wrote:Also Walt Disney thought cats were evil, even though plenty of films had innocent, good cats, he generally thought of cats as evil, as I read many times.


Interesting. I didn't know that. Any idea why Disney didn't like cats?
Disney Duster wrote: Villains that fell to their doom were probably supposed to always be taken as dead.
Yes, I'm sure they were.
Disney Duster wrote: and you can not count the direct to video sequels whenever talking about the original films unless the original people who worked on the original film also worked on the sequels.
.
Why not? Sounds like a pretty arbitrary rule to me.
Disney Duster wrote:also why the fuck did you hex-a-posted? You could of put all of that in one post.
Isn't overracting to use a vulger word over something so minor? And what the heck is "hex-a-posting"?
Post Reply