DVDizzy Forum

I was saying if there's some reason we have no villains...we would have no villains lol.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I'll give it the next few years with Lee in charge of WDAS. If things still haven't changed with Lasseter gone in regards to the villains, I don't expect they ever will.

Yeah, we'll see. Maybe things will be different now with Lee at the helm.

JeanGreyForever wrote:And one could argue that Clayton and Gaston are sort of surprise villains.

It never occurred to me that Gaston could be considered a surprise villain in a way, but you're right; though it's clear from the beginning he's not a very good person, we couldn't have anticipated at first he would be capable of doing such evil things later. Clayton's case is a bit similar; there are some clues that he's not a very nice guy, but the reveal is bigger and comes later in the film, while in Gaston's case is shown more gradually. I personally do consider Clayton a surprise villain, and also Rourke from Atlantis. So I don't know why Pixar always gets credit for doing this first (in animation, surprise villains in general already existed in cinema) when it was Disney that started the trend.

Edgar from The Aristocats is also kind of a surprise villain. He seems nice in his first scenes. The reveal in his case comes quite early, but I remember being surprised to learn he was evil the first time I saw it.

Disney Duster wrote:I was saying if there's some reason we have no villains...we would have no villains lol.

I mean we basically don't have villains. Nobody looks at Bellwether or Yokai or Te Ka and considers them proper Disney villains. They're less villains and more antagonists or obstacles in their respective films.

D82 wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote:And one could argue that Clayton and Gaston are sort of surprise villains.

It never occurred to me that Gaston could be considered a surprise villain in a way, but you're right; though it's clear from the beginning he's not a very good person, we couldn't have anticipated at first he would be capable of doing such evil things later. Clayton's case is a bit similar; there are some clues that he's not a very nice guy, but the reveal is bigger and comes later in the film, while in Gaston's case is shown more gradually. I personally do consider Clayton a surprise villain, and also Rourke from Atlantis. So I don't know why Pixar always gets credit for doing this first (in animation, surprise villains in general already existed in cinema) when it was Disney that started the trend.

Edgar from The Aristocats is also kind of a surprise villain. He seems nice in his first scenes. The reveal in his case comes quite early, but I remember being surprised to learn he was evil the first time I saw it.

I've always seen Gaston as a villain but I know many people when the film first came out in 1991 said his portrayal was refreshing. They dismissed him as comic relief and a boorish brute but by the second half, he really develops into a full-fledged villain. There was even Disney Villains merch in the early 90s which didn't include Gaston with the other villains but used the Beast instead since that's what audiences expected from the opening of the film. Clayton is slightly more obvious but from his introduction scene alone, you don't immediately see him as a villain the way Cruella, Ursula, Jafar, or Scar are clearly villains. Rourke, as you pointed out, also counts. I guess Clayton and Rourke aren't very popular or iconic so people tend to forget about them. And interestingly enough, Pixar's first two films both had villains who weren't surprise villains at all (Sid and Hopper). It wasn't until Toy Story 2 that we got a surprise villain in the form of Stinky Pete and that film came out after Tarzan.

Edgar I think is arguable because it's not so much that he's a twist villain as much as he has no reason to be a villain in the opening scene. He doesn't become antagonistic until after he learns that he's been cut out of the will and then immediately we see his true colors. There's a reason that Edgar was always considered Disney's weakest "villain" if he can even be called that.

We don't have traditional villains now, that's true.

You should watch this video from Doug Walker, AKA the Nostalgia Critic, about Disney villains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiQNWp-fHwA.

He delves into how surprise villains came to be at one point. I will summarize for you...

The classic Disney movies would harness fear to make the happy ending all the happier, but it came at the cost of making the leads too dull (which was apparently mocked in "Enchanted"). So they began to focus more on the main characters (which they should have been doing all along). They became more energized, charming, likeable and relatable, but it came at the expense of making the villains as nasty as they once did. More time was spent on the leads in, say, "The Princess and the Frog" and "Tangled" than on their respective villains (Dr. Facilier and Mother Gothel). Now they were on the same level as the leads rather than upstaging them. But apparently, audiences' tastes were changing, which is another reason for where we are today.

This next part requires that I quote the Critic directly, because he probably makes a good point:

[T]he classic fairy tale "good vs. evil" was starting to be challenged by more modern audiences. If characters were going to be more three-dimensional and complex, the heroes needed more flaws and the villains needed more humanity. Great character writing often acknowledges people aren't just born good or bad. They're made by their surroundings, which are often addressed in good stories to understand them better. People were evolving beyond the basic "good vs. evil" story. They wanted something more interesting, more challenging, more... human.

Thus, Disney movies nowadays have surprise villains. However, the Critic also laments that they're not as fun as the classic villains once were:

These characters are done a lot with Disney films recently, which is not bad. Oftentimes, they work out fine and help serve the story or message. But when it's done this many times and with this many villains, not only does it start to get old, but we're kind of losing that connection to, well, enjoying our dark side. Nobody finds Hans, Bellwether, AUTO or Henry J. Waternoose cool villains. We don't enjoy watching them be evil, we just see them as nuisances that get in the way of our hero. Now, they're good at being in the way and being roadblocks, but they're not charming, fun or charismatic like these villains are. And that's because they weren't allowed to be villains throughout the majority of the film, so you can't enjoy them as much in that role. We don't get to see the devilish smirk of Frollo, the gratifying laugh of Jafar, the evil just enjoying being evil [of Chernabog] on "Night on Bald Mountain". That's what makes these villains so much fun.

JeanGreyForever wrote:There was even Disney Villains merch in the early 90s which didn't include Gaston with the other villains but used the Beast instead since that's what audiences expected from the opening of the film.

That's very curious. Do you think they did that to avoid spoiling Gaston's "twist"?

JeanGreyForever wrote:I guess Clayton and Rourke aren't very popular or iconic so people tend to forget about them. And interestingly enough, Pixar's first two films both had villains who weren't surprise villains at all (Sid and Hopper). It wasn't until Toy Story 2 that we got a surprise villain in the form of Stinky Pete and that film came out after Tarzan.

It's true that Clayton and Rourke aren't very memorable, so I guess you're right that that's probably why people tend to forget about them. It's interesting that surprise villains started to appear in animated films from different studios more or less at the same time. Tarzan and Toy Story 2 both came out in 1999 and had surprise villains and the same happened in 2001 with Atlantis and Monters, Inc. Don Bluth's Titan A.E. from 2000 has that type of villain as well. I don't remember now if DreamWorks or some other studio also had surprise villains around that time. Maybe the Fairy Godmother from Shrek 2 could count as one, but that film's from 2004 when this kind of twist was already popular. I thought Disney was the one that inspired other studios since they did it first, but all these films must've been in development more or less at the same time, so now I'm not so sure. Maybe it was the popularity of some live-action films released at the time which did that what gave them the idea, like for example, The Usual Suspects (1995) or Mission: Impossible (1996).

JeanGreyForever wrote:Edgar I think is arguable because it's not so much that he's a twist villain as much as he has no reason to be a villain in the opening scene. He doesn't become antagonistic until after he learns that he's been cut out of the will and then immediately we see his true colors.

That's a good point; he's different to the surprise villains from the current era in that regard. Come to think of it, he's a bit like Gaston. In both cases it's the circumstances they have to face that show how they really are. Though Gaston, of course, is much more evil.

Big Disney Fan wrote:You should watch this video from Doug Walker, AKA the Nostalgia Critic, about Disney villains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiQNWp-fHwA.

Thanks for sharing that link and for the summary, Big Disney Fan. He makes some good points in that video. It hadn't occurred to me that one of the reasons this trope is used so much nowadays could be that more time is needed to develop the protagonists than before, and there's not much time left for the villains. Though, in my opinion, a movie can have well-developed heroes and villains, as proven by films like The Little Mermaid or Aladdin.

By the way, he also mentions Treasure Planet among the films with surprise villains. I guess Silver could be considered that too, but we suspect from the beginning he could be the cyborg Billy Bones had warned Jim about, as does Jim himself. And from what I remember, his bad intentions are revealed to the audience quite early. It's Jim who's actually surprised when he learns about his plan and not us.

Doug Walker wrote:The classic fairy tale "good vs. evil" was starting to be challenged by more modern audiences. If characters were going to be more three-dimensional and complex, the heroes needed more flaws and the villains needed more humanity. Great character writing often acknowledges people aren't just born good or bad. They're made by their surroundings, which are often addressed in good stories to understand them better. People were evolving beyond the basic "good vs. evil" story. They wanted something more interesting, more challenging, more... human.

That's what I meant when I said that it seems villains can't be just evil now; they have to have some backstory that explains why they are like they are and lately they've even started to redeem them at the end. Disney's Divinity mentioned Ghibli films and it's true that in them there's not such a clearly defined line between good and evil. I guess that's partially due to that country's culture and here in the Western World people's mentality is also changing. People realize now that things are not so black and white and that's probably also reflected in the movies.

Big Disney Fan wrote:Great character writing often acknowledges people aren't just born good or bad. They're made by their surroundings, which are often addressed in good stories to understand them better.

Hm...Doug may not understand people that are who they are only partly because of surroundings. People are mainly who they are because of their soul. That's why people in the same families and environment still turn out different from each other.

I watched Doug's video a long time ago and I don't wish to revisit it, but I'll add something that Lindsay said on her video on the matter and that's that some of the Renaissance villains, mainly Jafar, Scar and Frollo are directly related to the protagonist's internal conflict. She also said that Hades and Facilier fail to do that and even though they are good external villains, they are weakening their films as a whole because of that.

D82 wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote:There was even Disney Villains merch in the early 90s which didn't include Gaston with the other villains but used the Beast instead since that's what audiences expected from the opening of the film.

That's very curious. Do you think they did that to avoid spoiling Gaston's "twist"?

JeanGreyForever wrote:I guess Clayton and Rourke aren't very popular or iconic so people tend to forget about them. And interestingly enough, Pixar's first two films both had villains who weren't surprise villains at all (Sid and Hopper). It wasn't until Toy Story 2 that we got a surprise villain in the form of Stinky Pete and that film came out after Tarzan.

It's true that Clayton and Rourke aren't very memorable, so I guess you're right that that's probably why people tend to forget about them. It's interesting that surprise villains started to appear in animated films from different studios more or less at the same time. Tarzan and Toy Story 2 both came out in 1999 and had surprise villains and the same happened in 2001 with Atlantis and Monters, Inc. Don Bluth's Titan A.E. from 2000 has that type of villain as well. I don't remember now if DreamWorks or some other studio also had surprise villains around that time. Maybe the Fairy Godmother from Shrek 2 could count as one, but that film's from 2004 when this kind of twist was already popular. I thought Disney was the one that inspired other studios since they did it first, but all these films must've been in development more or less at the same time, so now I'm not so sure. Maybe it was the popularity of some live-action films released at the time which did that what gave them the idea, like for example, The Usual Suspects (1995) or Mission: Impossible (1996).

JeanGreyForever wrote:Edgar I think is arguable because it's not so much that he's a twist villain as much as he has no reason to be a villain in the opening scene. He doesn't become antagonistic until after he learns that he's been cut out of the will and then immediately we see his true colors.

That's a good point; he's different to the surprise villains from the current era in that regard. Come to think of it, he's a bit like Gaston. In both cases it's the circumstances they have to face that show how they really are. Though Gaston, of course, is much more evil.

Big Disney Fan wrote:You should watch this video from Doug Walker, AKA the Nostalgia Critic, about Disney villains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiQNWp-fHwA.

Thanks for sharing that link and for the summary, Big Disney Fan. He makes some good points in that video. It hadn't occurred to me that one of the reasons this trope is used so much nowadays could be that more time is needed to develop the protagonists than before, and there's not much time left for the villains. Though, in my opinion, a movie can have well-developed heroes and villains, as proven by films like The Little Mermaid or Aladdin.

By the way, he also mentions Treasure Planet among the films with surprise villains. I guess Silver could be considered that too, but we suspect from the beginning he could be the cyborg Billy Bones had warned Jim about, as does Jim himself. And from what I remember, his bad intentions are revealed to the audience quite early. It's Jim who's actually surprised when he learns about his plan and not us.

Doug Walker wrote:The classic fairy tale "good vs. evil" was starting to be challenged by more modern audiences. If characters were going to be more three-dimensional and complex, the heroes needed more flaws and the villains needed more humanity. Great character writing often acknowledges people aren't just born good or bad. They're made by their surroundings, which are often addressed in good stories to understand them better. People were evolving beyond the basic "good vs. evil" story. They wanted something more interesting, more challenging, more... human.

That's what I meant when I said that it seems villains can't be just evil now; they have to have some backstory that explains why they are like they are and lately they've even started to redeem them at the end. Disney's Divinity mentioned Ghibli films and it's true that in them there's not such a clearly defined line between good and evil. I guess that's partially due to that country's culture and here in the Western World people's mentality is also changing. People realize now that things are not so black and white and that's probably also reflected in the movies.

I think this merch was actually after Beauty and the Beast came out. Maybe they just felt the Beast was more marketable than Gaston, even as a villain. Some images were posted in old threads here which is where I first saw this in real life.

The Fairy Godmother also shows her true colors pretty early on in the film right after her first scene so she was more following in the patterns that Shrek already set. I'm honestly not that familiar with the live-action films from that era to know if they set the standard for twist villains or not but you're right that it seems in animated films at least, multiple studios went with this trope around the same time. I can't remember Dreamworks using a twist villain in their early films either.

Yes, good point about Edgar and Gaston. I think Edgar would have improved with a villainess to work off of like Elvira, the maid character who was originally supposed to be in cahoots with Edgar. Had they made her the villainess (in the vein of Cruella and Medusa) with Edgar as her bumbling sidekick (in the vein of Horace and Jasper and Snoops), I think the dynamic would have worked better.

Thanks for that video as well Big Disney Fan! And I agree that the 90s films did a great job creating developed protagonists while balancing them out with full-on villains. Calling Tiana, Rapunzel, or Elsa more developed than Ariel, Beast, Aladdin, Simba, Quasi, etc. is laughable imo. Elsa gets so much criticism for having very little depth or screentime in Frozen, Rapunzel is a literal blend of all the princesses before her and her personality is based off of that alone, Tiana is literally designed to oppose every negative Black stereotype there is to the point that there isn't much more to her character.

I wouldn't call Silver a twist villain only because if you read the book or watch any Treasure Island adaptation (including Disney's live-action one), it's always clear from the beginning that Silver is a vicious pirate and Jim himself has these suspicions which get buried overtime because of his close relationship with Silver. And Silver does that on purpose to make sure Jim doesn't expose him.

This is the reason we get films like Maleficent or the new Cruella film to explain why these villains shouldn't be considered evil as actually it was all because of a tragic moments in their lives. Nevermind that Disney had no issue making Stefan completely irredeemable or the three good fairies a bunch of annoying nitwits.

D82 wrote: Thanks for sharing that link and for the summary, Big Disney Fan. He makes some good points in that video. It hadn't occurred to me that one of the reasons this trope is used so much nowadays could be that more time is needed to develop the protagonists than before, and there's not much time left for the villains. Though, in my opinion, a movie can have well-developed heroes and villains, as proven by films like The Little Mermaid or Aladdin.

This so much. And I'd throw in several more Disney films with strong protagonists and villains both (B&tB, TLK, Hunchback, Mulan, Hercules, etc.). It was really only the very old Walt films where the villains would so obviously cast a shadow over the rest of the cast. Pongo was a strong character, but nowhere in comparison to Cruella. Same with anyone in SB versus Maleficent or SW versus the Queen.

JeanGreyForever wrote:This is the reason we get films like Maleficent or the new Cruella film to explain why these villains shouldn't be considered evil as actually it was all because of a tragic moments in their lives. Nevermind that Disney had no issue making Stefan completely irredeemable or the three good fairies a bunch of annoying nitwits.

True. And Wicked's popularity.

I wouldn't attack Wicked, tbh. The book is very clever and portrays a world in which politics and casual racism would lead to an unusual woman being scapegoated as the enemy of the entire nation who is lead by a phony man who is in fear of his power being taken away. People for decades have written about the political and queer subtext of the Wizard of Oz so Gregory Maguire adding his own spin doesn't seem too unusual to me.

Also I wouldn't say we're getting "redemption arcs"; either, because the villains are deposed of very easily and once they turn evil, they just act as foils, with everything suggesting that their previous personality was a mask. Like antis of the Renaissance may whine about how one-dimensional the old villains were but there was still a personality, even if it could be reduced to "evil". It was camp, it was extravagant, and if you wanted to see depth you could see things like Scar's inferiority complex or Frollo's fear for his soul...On the other hand, does anyone really care about Miss Sheep? Or Petty College Professor? Does anyone genuinely think their backstories offer any depth or humanity? I know the films try with that "boohoo my daughter is dead" crap but it's just not convincing in my eyes. Once these villains are jailed, their stories end. Disney has no interest to turn back to them, or have the heroes listen to them, or anything. Redemption arc, I don't see it. And that there are people out there claiming Bellwether or YoKai are Disney's answer to Zuko is just laughable. More delulu Revival stanning I guess.


I kinda wonder if this need for villains and for stories to have villains is very influenced by Western culture, which was shaped by Christianity, which its history has a clear good vs evil dichotomy. Now the Church implemented that onto real life which lead to disastrous consequences, but it influenced the imagery of knights, dragons, superheroes and all that stuff.

Also Divinity, I think even angry white men aren't safe of being villains. I know the Disney Karens who find villains "problematic" because they make children behave badly, and they are disturbed that there are people who like Disney villains. In their own words, having merch of Maleficent means you are a murderer. So to these hellers their ideal Disney movie is one with no villains at all, or the villain gets the most basic and bland characterization so the white, skinny, bland breeding pair protagonist can shine.

thedisneyspirit wrote: Also I wouldn't say we're getting "redemption arcs"; either, because the villains are deposed of very easily and once they turn evil, they just act as foils, with everything suggesting that their previous personality was a mask. Like antis of the Renaissance may whine about how one-dimensional the old villains were but there was still a personality, even if it could be reduced to "evil". It was camp, it was extravagant, and if you wanted to see depth you could see things like Scar's inferiority complex or Frollo's fear for his soul...On the other hand, does anyone really care about Miss Sheep? Or Petty College Professor? Does anyone genuinely think their backstories offer any depth or humanity? I know the films try with that "boohoo my daughter is dead" crap but it's just not convincing in my eyes. Once these villains are jailed, their stories end. Disney has no interest to turn back to them, or have the heroes listen to them, or anything. Redemption arc, I don't see it. And that there are people out there claiming Bellwether or YoKai are Disney's answer to Zuko is just laughable. More delulu Revival stanning I guess.

This so much. These characters aren't complex or dynamic at all. I almost see them as devoid of character entirely; they're really just plot figures who are marched offscreen pretty fast after the mystery is unveiled. Bellwether, for example, has the potential to be very interesting, but she has only one scene where she just hams it up. I always look forward to the scene ending because it's hard to watch, in repeats especially.

I don't think every film needs a villain. I'm actually fine with films with no villains or redeemed villains. But I admit I also want to have some films with old-fashioned villains, too. I don't think it has to be an either/or, although these studios treat it that way.

thedisneyspirit wrote:
Also Divinity, I think even angry white men aren't safe of being villains. I know the Disney Karens who find villains "problematic" because they make children behave badly, and they are disturbed that there are people who like Disney villains. In their own words, having merch of Maleficent means you are a murderer. So to these hellers their ideal Disney movie is one with no villains at all, or the villain gets the most basic and bland characterization so the white, skinny, bland breeding pair protagonist can shine.

True, I have read some Christian reviews of Disney films that dislike the portrayal of any evil Disney character at all, even one that gets comeuppance at the end. They see characters like Ursula or Maleficent as glorifying evil because they are so much fun to watch. I don't agree with that, personally. While I love those characters and collect merchandise of them, they've always been my favorites, I don't adulate them at all. I think their presence makes their films stronger because there are high stakes, drama, tension, etc.

Thedisneyspirit, when did I ever attack Wicked? I like Wicked! I read the book and saw the Broadway show and am looking forward to the movie!!!

Also, Christianity is part of real life. If you don't agree you don't have to say other people's religions are false thank you.

I'm watching the films again in order and just wanted to say that I feel like this was the defining decade for Disney, the light hearted tone is featured in more films than the dark-light serious tone of the Big 5. Just an observation since before that I watched various Classic Hollywood films, but Disney films weren't the only ones that went through a change. In the 40's the films had a more serious nature (for instance Casablanca) than the 50's films, which were more comedic and romantic (obviously not all films were like that but I'm talking about the trend). I guess this is an effect of WWII, maybe after the war people were probably more inclined to watch something more cheerful as an escapism than something that might be more depressing. Regardless, I do like both eras and feel like both have something to offer.

That is probably exactly right. After the war, people wanted to see movies that reflected happiness instead of the films that reflected the darkness they were facing before.

JeanGreyForever wrote:I think this merch was actually after Beauty and the Beast came out. Maybe they just felt the Beast was more marketable than Gaston, even as a villain.

Oh, OK. Yes, maybe that's the reason. That makes me wonder, does Disney use their surprise villains (as villains) in merchandise when some years have passed since the release of their movies or are they always careful not to reveal the surprise to people/new generations of kids who still haven't seen the movies? I don't keep track of the merchandise Disney releases, so I don't know.

JeanGreyForever wrote:I think Edgar would have improved with a villainess to work off of like Elvira, the maid character who was originally supposed to be in cahoots with Edgar. Had they made her the villainess (in the vein of Cruella and Medusa) with Edgar as her bumbling sidekick (in the vein of Horace and Jasper and Snoops), I think the dynamic would have worked better.

Maybe, but perhaps it would've felt too similar to 101 Dalmatians.

JeanGreyForever wrote:I wouldn't call Silver a twist villain only because if you read the book or watch any Treasure Island adaptation (including Disney's live-action one), it's always clear from the beginning that Silver is a vicious pirate and Jim himself has these suspicions which get buried overtime because of his close relationship with Silver. And Silver does that on purpose to make sure Jim doesn't expose him.

You're right. By the way, Doug Walker also mentions Sid from Toy Story in that video and I don't agree he's a surprise villain either.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And I'd throw in several more Disney films with strong protagonists and villains both (B&tB, TLK, Hunchback, Mulan, Hercules, etc.)

I just mentioned a couple of examples I knew most people would agree with, but you're right that there are more Disney movies whose protagonists and villains are both strong.

thedisneyspirit wrote:Also I wouldn't say we're getting "redemption arcs"; either, because the villains are deposed of very easily and once they turn evil, they just act as foils, with everything suggesting that their previous personality was a mask.

No, not at Disney. When I mentioned that I had seen several animated movies lately with villains who are redeemed at the end I was referring to movies from other studios. Sorry, I should have specified they weren't from Disney.

thedisneyspirit wrote:I kinda wonder if this need for villains and for stories to have villains is very influenced by Western culture, which was shaped by Christianity, which its history has a clear good vs evil dichotomy. Now the Church implemented that onto real life which lead to disastrous consequences, but it influenced the imagery of knights, dragons, superheroes and all that stuff.

I think you may have a point there, though to be fair; in every culture there are usually good deities and bad spirits, so that's probably not exclusive to Western culture.

By the way, sorry for speaking for you thedisneyspirit, maybe I'm wrong, but Disney Duster, I think thedisneyspirit was not attacking the religion itself but more the horrible things people have done in the name of God/Christianity, which I think we can all agree it's true.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't think every film needs a villain. I'm actually fine with films with no villains or redeemed villains. But I admit I also want to have some films with old-fashioned villains, too. I don't think it has to be an either/or, although these studios treat it that way.

I completely agree.

And I hadn't thought about that before, farerb, but I also think you may be right that the lighter tone of the '50s films compared to the ones from the '40s could be due to the effect the war had on movies in general.

D82 wrote:By the way, sorry for speaking for you thedisneyspirit, maybe I'm wrong, but Disney Duster, I think thedisneyspirit was not attacking the religion itself but more the horrible things people have done in the name of God/Christianity, which I think we can all agree it's true.

thedisneyspirit wrote:I kinda wonder if this need for villains and for stories to have villains is very influenced by Western culture, which was shaped by Christianity, which its history has a clear good vs evil dichotomy. Now the Church implemented that onto real life which lead to disastrous consequences, but it influenced the imagery of knights, dragons, superheroes and all that stuff.

She said Christianity has nothing to do with real life like she thinks that's a fact instead of a belief.

Disney Duster wrote:She said Christianity has nothing to do with real life like she thinks that's a fact instead of a belief.

Oh, OK. Now I see what you mean. But I still think thedisneyspirit's intention wasn't to imply that, but to explain that villains weren't only in stories but real people were considered villains too by Christians, like for example, the women that were accused of witchcraft and were killed during the Inquisition. Though again, I shouldn't speak for others, so I won't say anything else.

Don't feel bad, D82; it's a good thing to defend other people. Anyway, I didn't think thedisneyspirit was attacking religion, more how there have been religious leaders and/or followers over the generations who have demonized some segments of society, often out of pursuit for power.