The Ridiculous Motives Of Disney Villains!

[Disney Duster]

Correct if I'm wrong but didn't Eric might be jeopardizing his kingdom royal linage if he went to marry some girl with mysterious voice rather than one of the chosen girls for him?

Eric didn't give a crap about the kingdom or being Prince!

Goliath, you made me think of people doing sexist things in film they may never have intended, like for example using the double standard. You may not think about how it's sexist or even realize you're using it, but it's still sexist.

So Divinity, that does make me think some un-intended things can still count.

But intention is still important, and even though un-intended things may matter, intention is still above it all. Wouldn't it be interesting to know, maybe if they could go back, those who made the film would go in and fix the un-intended things like that?

Anyway, like I said, intention still reigns above it all. When Ariel's on that rock, it makes Triton see she really loves him, and in a way a man finally sees the female is right and gives in to her. No, she isn't making him, he's doing it on his own, and she's almost definately not looking at Eric to make her father understand, but simply because she's sad she may never be with him, but still. The scene is really about Triton's character arc of changing to accept humans, and accept his daughter's love and desire, and his transformation for her is a perfect fairy tale moment.

HEY! I just realized Ariel on the rock is supposed to be like The Little Mermaid statue in Denmark, and that statue has the mermaid in mid-transformation. So her transforming on the rock is yet another homage to the original statue! Though that, too, may be un-intended, as they never specified the transforming part on the DVD commentary.

OH AND about finding a 'final answer', no you can't find a final answer in interpretation, but you can find a final answer, a right answer, on what was originally intended and what it really is! Those who made it and put in such intentions may not tell you the answer, but there is still a right answer, if unknown.

[Disney's Divinity]

Disney's Divinity, well, don't you hate it when people say The Little Mermaid is sexist? They see that Ariel's real happiness comes from Triton pointing his huge thing and making yellow shining stuff transform her and then she's passed on to another man? Don't you always try to say the real intent was not to make the film sexist? The real intent...?

Actually, besides the fact that I don't think the film was intended to be sexist, I said I don't find the film sexist (regardless of the intent or anyone else's thoughts on the movie). My opinion makes the difference to me, though I do see other people's points and understand why they might feel that way. Doesn't mean I take them in though.

But intention is still important, and even though un-intended things may matter, intention is still above it all to me.

There. That's better.

Also, just to address a few other things I've read, I still don't really understand what makes Frollo and Tremaine more complex than The Evil Queen, Scar, Ursula, or even Hades, to be honest. (And, of course, Silver from TP is very complex--mostly because he's an antagonist and not really a villain at all, in the same vein as Beast, who is somewhere in the middle as well.) To me, those villains were explored and explained pretty well. Just because Frollo prayed to God doesn't make him any different from the others. He was still arrogant, self-serving, and mostly evil at the core (with no sign or interest in change). It's as strange as calling Gaston a more complex villain because he wasn't out-an-out killing people at the beginning of the movie. And yet he was still that same arrogant, narcissistic ass at the beginning as he was at the end, as was Frollo.

I suppose maybe it has to do with the other films being so fantastical (word?). Tremaine and Frollo actually seem like they could be alive in the real world, because, really, how often do you see witches running around or gods fighting one another? But they were still presented well, to me at any rate.

[Disney Duster]

Well I once saw a play that took place in the future and somehow black people became slaves again. And some people said the play was racist and left, before finding out the play showed how everyone should be free.

It just makes me think, if someone thinks something is racist, but the person that made it purposely intended it to show racism is wrong, intent really matters.

If it intent doesn't reign above all, well then, I will continue to point out how the women writer hired to pen Beauty and the Beast's screenplay so it wouldn't be sexist apparently didn't notice she had a huge strong man beast saving a beautiful girl from a pack of wolves...

By the way, why is it if a character changes they're more complex? Like seriously, they can be complex by there just being a lot that they do, a lot within the character, not just "oh he was bad then he was good" or "oh he was okay but then he was bad". You can be complexly evil or complexly good, dang.

Belle didn't change from kind girl to mean girl, did she? I guess you could say she changed to love a horrible beast but when did she ever dislike anyone because of their exterior?

[Goliath]

@ Disney's Divinity:

Gaston is a villain, because indeed, he's arrogant, he's cruel and he will do anything just to get his way (like locking up Belle and her father and try to kill the Beast). But he does this for no other reason than himself and his own selfish interests. He's not ashamed about it, he doesn't try to make himself and his actions look prettier than they are, he even brags about it as if those are good charater traits. All this makes him a very traditional, one-dimensional villain.

Frollo, on the other hand, derives his amoral behavior from a wrongheaded belief that he's actually doing what's morally right. He has convinced himself that his actions are contributing to a better world. He actually believe this. That's his motivation for his discrimination against the gypsies. Yet when he meets Esmeralda, he forgets this because he wants her for his own, but only for sexual reasons. He knows he's wrong, although his idea of it being wrong is that he's 'supposed' to hate the gypsies and now he's lusing after one. So he's even wrong about thinking why he's wrong, yet he thinks he's right about the reasons why he's wrong. And this is not complex? He prays to God to forgive him for his sins. He knows he's sinning, and he even asks God forgiveness for the 'sins' of Esmeralda. How much more ambiguity do you want in a character? Can you imagine Gaston doing that 'Hellfire' scene?

[Disney Duster]

He knows he's wrong, although his idea of it being wrong is that he's 'supposed' to hate the gypsies and now he's lusing after one.

Actually, in 'Hellfire' it looks more like he's praying to stop his lusting after a woman because it's a sin, not because she is a Gypsy. He sings "this burning desire is turning me to sin." It really sounds like he thinks it's a sin for the usual adulterous reasons.

And with pretending to be nice, or thinking you are right, you made me think about how Lady Tremaine often tries to make it look like her treatment of Cinderella is right, punishing her for being bad, or because her things belong to her stepsisters. Though underneath that, she certainly must know she is doing wrong, even if it could be to help her daughters, and herself, advance. It could be evening out the playing field - you're pretty, their not, it's easier for you, so I'll give you harder treatment and them better treatment.

[BelleGirl]

He knows he's wrong, although his idea of it being wrong is that he's 'supposed' to hate the gypsies and now he's lusing after one.

Actually, in 'Hellfire' it looks more like he's praying to stop his lusting after a woman because it's a sin, not because she is a Gypsy. He sings "this burning desire is turning me to sin." It really sounds like he thinks it's a sin for the usual adulterous reasons.

And with pretending to be nice, or thinking you are right, you made me think about how Lady Tremaine often tries to make it look like her treatment of Cinderella is right, punishing her for being bad, or because her things belong to her stepsisters. Though underneath that, she certainly must know she is doing wrong, even if it could be to help her daughters, and herself, advance. It could be evening out the playing field - you're pretty, their not, it's easier for you, so I'll give you harder treatment and them better treatment.

Oh yes, lady Tremaine can be very subtle in hiding her malicious intend. For example she says to Cindereally that she could go to the ball IF she can finish her chores and make herself a suitable dress to wear. (you know the outcome) and when Cindy does come out with a dress lady Tremaine is very 'complimentary' about her outfit and then watches on calmly as her daughters rip the dress apart, and doesn't tell them to stop till all the damage is done. So she lets her girls do the dirty work while she remains the 'perfect lady'.

[2099net]

Also, just to address a few other things I've read, I still don't really understand what makes Frollo and Tremaine more complex than The Evil Queen, Scar, Ursula, or even Hades, to be honest. (And, of course, Silver from TP is very complex--mostly because he's an antagonist and not really a villain at all, in the same vein as Beast, who is somewhere in the middle as well.) To me, those villains were explored and explained pretty well. Just because Frollo prayed to God doesn't make him any different from the others. He was still arrogant, self-serving, and mostly evil at the core (with no sign or interest in change). It's as strange as calling Gaston a more complex villain because he wasn't out-an-out killing people at the beginning of the movie. And yet he was still that same arrogant, narcissistic ass at the beginning as he was at the end, as was Frollo.

I suppose maybe it has to do with the other films being so fantastical (word?). Tremaine and Frollo actually seem like they could be alive in the real world, because, really, how often do you see witches running around or gods fighting one another? But they were still presented well, to me at any rate.

Well, I'm not sure Frollo is more complex than Scar, Tremaine etc. But he's so much more complex than Maleficent, there's no comparison.

The difference is virtually everything spoken by Frollo, Scar etc. is used for character development or to further the plot. You know exactly what the character wants, feels and even thinks by his voice and actions.

The fact that Frollo is a "Judge" in Disney's version is more or less irrelevant. I guess Disney didn't want to get too involved in religion. Disney's Frollo is basically the same as the novels.

He's still full of hypocrisy.

He excuses himself by justifying that his actions for for people's greater good. Quazimodo is half-a-man, and while he does feel some compassion for him, he's convinced himself and Quazimodo that he's better off in isolation, so others can't abuse him - regardless of the fact Quazimodo is abused by Frollo himself.

His dislike of the Gypsies is because he sees them as pagan barbarians - the opposite of his Christian "goodness" (although this is nominally toned down in the film via Disney's device of making him a Judge rather than Bishop). While its a while since I seen the film, doesn't he accuse Esmeralda of being a witch? Again, like he is convinced his actions are for the good of others - convert or destroy the Godless vermin Gypsies - he finds excuses for his own weaknesses and dark desires which go against his Christian morals. It's the only way he can reconcile his emotions with his "duty".

His infatuation with Esmeralda would be all the more interesting if Disney's Frollo was a Bishop, having taken a vow of celibacy, but even in Disney's version we can see that he's afraid of his lustful desires. He's afraid of losing the respect of others (although, Phoebus clearly shows us that Frollo doesn't have this respect in the first place).

Everything with Frollo is about discipline, control and appearance. He must have respect. He must appear to be in control and civilised at all times. He must take the longer view and make tough decisions for the greater good of Paris. Note how even his "adoption" of Quazimodo is more to do with his appearance in the "eyes of God" than for any true concern of the baby's welfare. And subsequently, he doesn't want people knowing of his deformed adoptive son, as it would reflect badly on himself.

His hypocrisy reaches a peak, when he - the highest figure of law and order in the whole of Paris - leaves the city burning, its people rioting as he ignores one of the cornerstones of not only law, but Christian beliefs of the time as he refuses to let Esmeralda claim sanctuary in the Cathedral. It's an important part of the movie (and original novel), because it shows how his own inner conflicts have basically twisted and distorted the very rules and regulations he once studied and not only obeyed but was trusted by the people to uphold. Either as lawman (Disney's version) or a man of the cloth (in the Novel).

I'd have to watch the film again a few times, but I'm pretty sure each and every one of my statements could be justified and expanded with quotes either from Frollo himself or by others talking about Frollo.

Scar is a political plotter, and opportunist, carefully manipulating others and forming external alliances. That makes him complex. Like Frollo, but unlike many Disney villains, he starts out with no magic, no army, followers or sidekicks, no Kingdom or wealth of his own (although he is royal). He basically get's it all through his own guile, cunning and bargaining.

But more than that, once he has the power he craved - something he wanted so much, he would kill members of his own family - he doesn't know what to do with it. He ends up a bad leader - a dictator who doesn't even end up making his own life better. His actions destroy the whole of the Pridelands' delicate eco-system. His greed - even without Simba's return - would result in his own death. That's something I find fascinating about Scar. He's the author of his own downfall to a great extent.

Tremaine is like Frollo to a large extent. She wants her own flesh and blood to succeed - to be popular, desired, wealthy and respected. And like Frollo, she convinces herself her jealousy and site towards Cinderella aren't a failing or weakness, but required for the good of her children. She is evil, but not evil for evils sake. She has her own clearly seen motivation and rationalisation for everything she does.

I'm not a big fan on Cinderella III because not only do I find Cinderella herself out of character, but also Tremaine. Giving her access to magic only cheapens her evil. Oddly, while it's despised around here, I actually like Cinderella II a lot more than III, especially for the development of Anastasia. I think Cinderella II is much more in keeping with the original film than "A Twist in Time" is, where Tremaine basically becomes Malificent the second.

Oh and talking of Maleficent - what exactly could you write or say about Maleficent from what is shown on screen? Do we know her history? No. And given the state of the kingdom in the opening celebrations, Maleficent hasn't exactly been terrorising the kingdom before her most likely accidental "snub". Her curse is somewhat weak, for a being who can "summon the powers of Hell". What she does in the intervening 16 years is downright mind-boggling. Even with her army of Goons, she obviously doesn't terrorise the kingdom in the meantime. She never once really explains her scheme or goals. What is her goal? Does it change when the curse if altered? Why does she seem content to let Aurora sleep, when original she wanted her dead? Nothing appears to be consistant. She's not a character. She doesn't have needs, motivations and justifications. She doesn't even appear to have weaknesses, either physical or mental. She just is evil, because... well, she just "is" isn't she?

[Goliath]

@ 2099 net:

Wow, great post! You explained it better than I ever could.

@ Disney Duster:

I think the reason whi Frollo is lusting after Esmeralda in nothing but a sexual way, is because she's "only" a gypsy. I recall somebody on UD writing a theory about how racists sometimes lust after women of the race they despise, because in their minds, it is okay to use those women for nothing but sex, since they're not 'worthy' of love anyway. I think that's how Frollo sees Esmeralda.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well, I'm not sure Frollo is more complex than Scar, Tremaine etc. But he's so much more complex than Maleficent, there's no comparison.

I know--that's why I never mentioned Maleficent. The problem with Sleeping Beauty on the whole is that the Good Fairies and Maleficent are kind of caught up in a "no way but this way" situation. Maleficent can only use her powers for evil and the others only for good. Which leaves the question hanging (in my mind at least), does this validate either side as really good or evil at all? Could they have possibly been anything other than what they are forced to be? If they couldn't have a choice between being evil or being good, then how could they possibly be either? So, really, Maleficent becomes the embodiment of evil and not really a character with choices and temptations at all.

I'm not a big fan on Cinderella III because not only do I find Cinderella herself out of character, but also Tremaine. Giving her access to magic only cheapens her evil. Oddly, while it's despised around here, I actually like Cinderella II a lot more than III, especially for the development of Anastasia. I think Cinderella II is much more in keeping with the original film than "A Twist in Time" is, where Tremaine basically becomes Malificent the second.

I agree with you completely (I remember posting similar thoughts in the Twist in Time thread a long time), even on liking the first sequel for the small bit about Anastasia.

Gaston is a villain, because indeed, he's arrogant, he's cruel and he will do anything just to get his way (like locking up Belle and her father and try to kill the Beast). But he does this for no other reason than himself and his own selfish interests. He's not ashamed about it, he doesn't try to make himself and his actions look prettier than they are, he even brags about it as if those are good charater traits. All this makes him a very traditional, one-dimensional villain.

Frollo, on the other hand, derives his amoral behavior from a wrongheaded belief that he's actually doing what's morally right. He has convinced himself that his actions are contributing to a better world. He actually believe this.

But, you see, there isn't much difference here. Gaston's actions are as fully justified within his own world as Frollo's are in his--though Gaston is congratulated by those around him and Frollo instead convinces himself of his righteousness. Don't get me wrong, I do think Frollo is more complex than Gaston (that was just a snide comment--sorry), it's just that I don't really consider Frollo that much different than many other villains. Most, if not all, the others justify their actions to themselves and feel themselves entitled to feel and act the way they do. Okay, occasionally you get a crappy villain like Jafar who knows it's not right, but does it anyway (although I'm lenient, considering it was considered a comedy). But all villains justify their behavior to themselves. I haven't seen many villains from Disney that see themselves as evil beyond the merchandise ("We're so good at being bad!"). And most, if not all, also feel this way because they desire or feel they should receive respect.

So, to get to the point, I never said Frollo wasn't complex or a good villain. Just that I don't understand why he's being held on a higher peg than other villains who I find equally as satisfying in the same way. Only different movies go about it in different ways. Gaston doesn't need to feel guilt over lusting after a woman because, well, in his particular role in that society, he wouldn't. Gaston is interesting as representing, rather overtly, the sexism of Belle's village. Frollo represents religious hypocrisy. And they both could be seen as the results of cultural brainwashing. I suppose the difference is that some villains become more symbols than characters, and Gaston could be seen that way (same as with Maleficent). The only real character trait he has is his narcissicism.

On another sidenote, I just remembered another group of villains (or maybe they would just be antagonists?) that were always rather complex in the same way that Tremaine and Frollo, as far as appealing to morals and respectable behavior goes--the Circus Elephants from Dumbo.

[2099net]

But, you see, there isn't much difference here. Gaston's actions are as fully justified within his own world as Frollo's are in his--though Gaston is congratulated by those around him and Frollo instead convinces himself of his righteousness. Don't get me wrong, I do think Frollo is more complex than Gaston (that was just a snide comment--sorry), it's just that I don't really consider Frollo that much different than many other villains. Most, if not all, the others justify their actions to themselves and feel themselves entitled to feel and act the way they do. Okay, occasionally you get a crappy villain like Jafar who knows it's not right, but does it anyway (although I'm lenient, considering it was considered a comedy). But all villains justify their behavior to themselves. I haven't seen many villains from Disney that see themselves as evil beyond the merchandise ("We're so good at being bad!"). And most, if not all, also feel this way because they desire or feel they should receive respect.

So, to get to the point, I never said Frollo wasn't complex or a good villain. Just that I don't understand why he's being held on a higher peg than other villains who I find equally as satisfying in the same way. Only different movies go about it in different ways. Gaston doesn't need to feel guilt over lusting after a woman because, well, in his particular role in that society, he wouldn't. Gaston is interesting as representing, rather overtly, the sexism of Belle's village. Frollo represents religious hypocrisy. And they both could be seen as the results of cultural brainwashing.

I see Gaston basically as a plot device. He exists to serve the plot's needs. He doesn't drive the plot. Gaston is a stereotype, not a character. When somebody is needed to attack the Beast, Gaston is there. But even then, we're not quite sure of his motivation for doing so.

Hunting? Revenge for taking Belle from him?

Why does Gaston want Belle? Belle maybe classically beautiful, but let's face it Gaston's bimbos are sexier. You'd think somebody as superficial as Gaston appears to be would just go for sexy. Unless of course, he's attracted to Belle because he's one of the few women who don't throw themselves at his feet.

But all of this is unsaid. Gaston isn't in the film to be examined as a person. He's a device.

But Frollo drives the plot. As I said, the attack on the cathedral and the destruction of Paris is critical to the story. In fact, Frollo is critical to the story. He does more than Quazimodo does to drive the plot. The film should be called "Frollo of Notre Dame"!

[Disney Duster]

Thanks BelleGirl.

Divinity, I would say at least the Evil Queen was just evil and ruthless and not justifying her actions. It was competition. I'm just listing one. Maleficent of course just does something evil because she wants to, which real people in real life to all the time. They want to, so they do. Though she did the evil first because she was snubbed, so it was revenge.

Goliath, that is interesting and sounds possible, but I have to say it is still possible that Frollo prayed to stop lusting after because of the normal Christian reasons it is wrong.

Yes, that was a really great post Netty. It does sound like, even though I think many Disney villains are complex, Frollo may be the most complex of all, or one of them.

Didn't Scar start out the film with his army of hyenas? But I guess they weren't given to him, he probably threatened to eat them if they didn't help him. Likewise, Maleficent probably acquired her goons because they liked evil as much as her, as Scar's hyenas must also, but she could do damage to them if they didn't follow, like Scar. We don't know how either of them got their armies, though.

I do want to say that Tremaine may have the complex evil we are talking about, but in Disney tradition, she is deep down really evil with glowing eyes and a cat named Lucifer. But I think even the Evil Queen is at least a little complex, perhaps not much, and that many Walt villains can be complex and still have that "pure evil" demonization.

But I have to defend Maleficent. I have actually pointed out things about her I'm wondering if you ignored or didn't read at all. I would really like you to see what I mean or at least let me know why you don't this time. I am going to address the specific things you said.

First, it is possible that the King and Queen accidentally snubbed her, but when Merryweather said she wasn't wanted, and everyone knew she had a reputation of being evil, it seems more likely from evidence in the film that she was purposely snubbed because they didn't want her coming to the party because she could, oh, maybe put a curse on their baby.

As for a "weak" curse, when she has "the powers of Hell", yes, her curse of death was weakened by the power of good. We like to believe good weakens and conquers evil.

During the 16 years, the narrator tells us the kingdom is sad and lonely for many years until the 16th year approaches. Essentially this is what Maleficent wanted. She predicted the princess would die when 16, so the King, Queen, and kingdom would be sad as they watched her grow up, knowing the happy, joyful child would die early. The only difference is they now don't have the happy child with them, so it is worse, not knowing where she is or what she is doing, if she is safe, and just not getting to be with her.

Maleficent's goons have been searching for the princess, so unfortunately that preoccupies her over other evil deeds. That is probably why she's not doing any other big evil deeds, that we know of. But horrific creatures scouring a kingdom for her could have made the kingdom be frightened if they saw them. If not, then it's true, Maleficent is not completely happy either, but at least the kingdom still isn't.

The reason she is content that Aurora is alive, but asleep, is actually pretty easy. First, she may have been happier if the death happened, but as I said, she still made the King and Queen sad for 16 years as she desired. Then, as the princess is in cursed sleep, if true love never gets to wake her, then she might as well be dead. And if she's in ageless sleep, she's eternally trapped in a body without being able to do anything, like worse than death. But remember, it was more about what happened to the king and queen anyway, so they will be the ones in great agony if their daughter's only salvation, true love, is locked up for a hundred years, or indefinately, so their daughter's pretty much dead to them anyway, or as I suggested, worse. They would probably die before she awakened, if Maleficent still lets her be awakened after a certain time.

And she does have needs and weaknesses. She didn't get invited. She cares. She wants everyone to see and respect her, and needs it. If that's not a weakness, it's a need, right?

Aside from all this, one fan of the film noticed Maleficent's sexualization and desire to keep a young sexually attractive man in her dungeon and keep him from getting another sexually attractive woman, that when he approached Marc Davis about it, he said simply, "We weren't naive or innocent back then, you know" or something like that.

No Maleficent is not as complex as Frollo or some others, but that doesn't mean she's not complex at all.

Also it is pretty clear Gaston kills the Beast because Belle liked him more. Even if Belle doesn't marry him after the Beast is dead, Gaston will get revenge on the Beast and stop her sick desire. He says "Did you honestly think she would pick you when she had me?" while he's fighting the Beast, so...

[2099net]

Didn't Scar start out the film with his army of hyenas? But I guess they weren't given to him, he probably threatened to eat them if they didn't help him. Likewise, Maleficent probably acquired her goons because they liked evil as much as her, as Scar's hyenas must also, but she could do damage to them if they didn't follow, like Scar. We don't know how either of them got their armies, though.

I don't think he starts off with an army of hyenas. Again, as you know, its a long time since I've watched most Disney films, but when Simba is a kid, I think its clear the Hyena's land is their own. Yes, Scar has influence over them, but I don't think he quite controls them. Its only after he kills Mufasa the Hyena's follow him after he promises them a reward. I could be wrong. But I think its clear unlike most, he doesn't have kow-towing sidekicks - not even Ed, Shenzi and Banzai. They obviously always have had their own agenda.

I do want to say that Tremaine may have the complex evil we are talking about, but in Disney tradition, she is deep down really evil with glowing eyes and a cat named Lucifer. But I think even the Evil Queen is at least a little complex, perhaps not much, and that many Walt villains can be complex and still have that "pure evil" demonization.

I have to disagree. I don't think Tremaine is demonized in Cinderella. Her cat may have a somewhat odd name, but its a cat. Look at cats in real-life. Some of them can look demonic without even trying! Lucifer basically does what a cat does. Most of Lucifer's evil only seems evil beause the mice and speak, and he can't. It helps move our sympathy to the mice, as well as the mice's actions. I mean, if we were taking Cinderella seriously in some form of historical context, every house would want a cat to keep the mice under control.

As for glowing eyes, I think most Disney villains have had glowing eyes. Maybe even Frollo. At the end of the day, Tremaine's motivation is to better her own offspring. She undoubtedly is jealous of Cinderella who already is so much better in every way that matters, that she takes out her frustration at her own kin on Cinderella. But I don't see anything demonic in that - in fact, its probably shockingly true to life in some cases sadly.

But I have to defend Maleficent. I have actually pointed out things about her I'm wondering if you ignored or didn't read at all. I would really like you to see what I mean or at least let me know why you don't this time. I am going to address the specific things you said.

First, it is possible that the King and Queen accidentally snubbed her, but when Merryweather said she wasn't wanted, and everyone knew she had a reputation of being evil, it seems more likely from evidence in the film that she was purposely snubbed because they didn't want her coming to the party because she could, oh, maybe put a curse on their baby.

As for a "weak" curse, when she has "the powers of Hell", yes, her curse of death was weakened by the power of good. We like to believe good weakens and conquers evil.

During the 16 years, the narrator tells us the kingdom is sad and lonely for many years until the 16th year approaches. Essentially this is what Maleficent wanted. She predicted the princess would die when 16, so the King, Queen, and kingdom would be sad as they watched her grow up, knowing the happy, joyful child would die early. The only difference is they now don't have the happy child with them, so it is worse, not knowing where she is or what she is doing, if she is safe, and just not getting to be with her.

Maleficent's goons have been searching for the princess, so unfortunately that preoccupies her over other evil deeds. That is probably why she's not doing any other big evil deeds, that we know of. But horrific creatures scouring a kingdom for her could have made the kingdom be frightened if they saw them. If not, then it's true, Maleficent is not completely happy either, but at least the kingdom still isn't.

The reason she is content that Aurora is alive, but asleep, is actually pretty easy. First, she may have been happier if the death happened, but as I said, she still made the King and Queen sad for 16 years as she desired. Then, as the princess is in cursed sleep, if true love never gets to wake her, then she might as well be dead. And if she's in ageless sleep, she's eternally trapped in a body without being able to do anything, like worse than death. But remember, it was more about what happened to the king and queen anyway, so they will be the ones in great agony if their daughter's only salvation, true love, is locked up for a hundred years, or indefinately, so their daughter's pretty much dead to them anyway, or as I suggested, worse. They would probably die before she awakened, if Maleficent still lets her be awakened after a certain time.

And she does have needs and weaknesses. She didn't get invited. She cares. She wants everyone to see and respect her, and needs it. If that's not a weakness, it's a need, right?

Aside from all this, one fan of the film noticed Maleficent's sexualization and desire to keep a young sexually attractive man in her dungeon and keep him from getting another sexually attractive woman, that when he approached Marc Davis about it, he said simply, "We weren't naive or innocent back then, you know" or something like that.

No Maleficent is not as complex as Frollo or some others, but that doesn't mean she's not complex at all.

But it still doesn't quite ring true to me. All this thinking about the King and Queen's misery. I agree, that's most likely the point, but what point is there in engineering such a situation if she doesn't gloat about it? She just to all intents and purposes disappears for 16 years. Do you really think for 16 years she's going about her business (or by the look of it, non-business) in her castle with the odd thought "That king and queen must be really upset. That'll teach 'em!" every couple of days or so for comfort?

Also, leaving her Goons to look for the princess for 16 years is rather stupid. Presumably, she knew of their ineptitude as she first gave the command, or at least figured it out before 16 years was up. Or alternatively, Maleficent didn't consider it that important. She had other things to do?!? In which case, again, what was the point in not even knowing if Aurora was dead or alive when the time came.

Look all you say may be true. It may simply be true is we decide it is true, if we are that way inclined. But I can't reconcile the little we do see, with an great force of evil. She's the Diet Coke of evil.

[Disney Duster]

Divinity, just wanted to say I think Walt always had people be pure good or pure evil, at least in intention, but it was still possible to change. I know that doesn't make much sense but that's what I get. And Merryweather wanting to do something not good in the first place shows that, and then she turns the raven to stone, so...though maybe Walt thinks animals don't matter but he loved mice and dogs so who knows. I mean Cinderella of pure good was going to hit Lucifer and later got him killed and Walt "always thought cats were evil" so I dunno.

Now Netty!

Scar had an army of hyenas backing him when he sang "Be Prepared", before killing Mufassa, but before that I believe they were always around, just there, but on his team.

Did you see my added thing about Gaston seeing Belle and the Beast's love as sick and him bringing up who Belle shold pick when fighting the Beast? Just asking.

I do not think every villain had glowing eyes...if they had the whites of their eyes show up in the dark, that's one thing, but Lady Tremaine had yellow eyes when she locked Cinderella in her room.

Lucifer was definately a more evil cat than most. Whether or not he enjoyed torturing the mice as much as eating them may not be easy to decide, but we do know he enjoyed torturing Cinderella as well.

And I just want to remind that Tremaine wanted to advance herself as well, she was certainly not only thinking of her daughters.

You had really good points about Maleficent. No, I don't think she was very comforted by the kingdom's sadness for too long, she definately got angry, at least as the years progressed. She could've gotten kicks by occasionally seeing or hearing about people talking about how they miss and worry about the princess. But we don't know, of course.

It would be kind of weird if Maleficent did the searching herself. She obviously sees herself above others, so she makes others do the dirty work. She finally sends a servant who succeeds, her raven. She didn't know her goons were looking for a baby till later, but admittedly she should've known they were stupid. I think they were all she could get, though.

I didn't get what you meant when you said

Or alternatively, Maleficent didn't consider it that important. She had other things to do?!? In which case, again, what was the point in not even knowing if Aurora was dead or alive when the time came.

I just want some clarification.

I guess it's like they expanded her role from old mean fairy to Mistress of All Evil, but in the expansion, they made us wonder even more what was up with her, and they should have given her more to do...though once again, Disney tends not to think those things are important, it has to be all about the story. Even the cottage party had to do with celebrating the curse's end and making Aurora royalty again, while Maleficent's endeavors of doing bad deeds to people all the time wouldn't have much to do with the story. Admittedly, if she wanted to do something like take over the kingdom, then I could see how that could fit in, the whole kingdom seems affected by the fairies' doings, but that's also a little big for the story at hand.

I guess when Walt thought about how she cursed a baby to die early just because her parents snubbed her, he thought "That's really evil. Like, pure evil." And I have to agree...it's not the only possibility, but it sounds that way. She must've at least been a rather mean old fairy in the original tale. I mean, it sounds pretty darn heartless, unless they considered fairies just equal = fate and there's nothing you can do, but these fates are so personified, and can make choices, it's hard to only see it that way. Especially when one fairy can change the prediction of another fairy.

Diet Coke of Evil, maybe, and I have to admit that's pretty funny.

[Disney's Divinity]

Scar had an army of hyenas backing him when he sang "Be Prepared", before killing Mufassa, but before that I believe they were always around, just there, but on his team.

Actually, he doesn't. He's really only seen to be interacting with Ed, Shenzi and Banzai (or whoever), and only then because he gives them food. The other hyenas are only seen when he offers the deal for them to help murder Mufasa--ultimately benefitting themselves. They don't serve him, they conspire with him. It's a bit different than Maleficent's goons, who have no motivations whatsoever (except that they're stupid and Maleficent scares them).

And I just want to remind that Tremaine wanted to advance herself as well, she was certainly not only thinking of her daughters.

The movie never gives any kind of statement on this, so that's left up to the viewer. To me, she always seemed to be thinking of her daughter's welfare. If she were only concerned about herself, she would've used Cinderella to get herself in high places (considering she realized Cinderella was so much more beautiful, talented and "queenly" than her own daughters).

Also, touching on Maleficent, I think the movie alludes to some bitterness/unhappiness there, but it doesn't put it down for you to pay close attention to it (mostly because the one comment on it was made before 40 some minutes pointlessness with the fairies until it finally gets back to the plot). There's Fauna's thoughts (although, Fauna is hopelessly naive, so I wonder if that nixes some of her credibility), but there's also the way she mocks Phillip in the dungeon. She's certainly cynical. But, as 2099net said, it never explains why she feels this way. I also think it's weird that she didn't realize the goons were stupid and just get the raven to do it a long time ago. She speaks, "For the first time in 16 years, I will sleep well" as if the curse was very important to her. There's no way she had other things going on all that time without just finding Aurora herself (which, with all her powers, shouldn't have been that difficult).

As for your comment on Merriweather thinking about doing bad, Disney Duster, I wonder if her thoughts could really be considered bad? Shouldn't it be good for someone to want to put a stop to evil? Hence the reason the cosmic balance wasn't broken when she turned Diablo to stone.

[Goliath]

@ Disney's Divinity:

Still, I see a difference between Gaston and Frollo. Does Gaston even think he's doing something wrong? I don't think so. I think Gaston sees his won behavior as totally 'natural'. After all, isn't he a brave handsome huntsman that deserves to get the most beautiful girl in town? Whereas Frollo certainly knows what he's doing cannot be right. That's why he prays to God for forgiveness. That's why he tries to blame his faults on others: "the devil made me do it".

[Disney Duster]

Thanks for clearing up Scar, Divinity.

You;re right it is left up to the viewer, but the narrator says the stepmother is jealous of Cinderella's charm and beauty, strangely not stating the stepsisters are jealous, and Lady Tremaine was actually rather attractive when we first see her in the window, so I do wonder if she had a strange sick hate for a girl who's much younger being prettier or more charming than her. But like you said, she could be jealous because Cinderella is "better" than her stepdaughters who are her own flesh and blood.

Right about Maleficent, Fauna sees some kind of thought-provoking insight into someone who does evil and seems to enjoy it but underneath it all may be unhappy. But my family actually laughed at that line, so maybe it was more like "duh, of course she's unhappy!" That's just what my family did.

It is still possible she did other evil things that gave her small joy while searching for Aurora, not no way at all, it's still possible, she just didn't sleep as well with the subject of her curse being hid.

I just realized, this curse is yet another way to be seen as powerful and the most evil of all. If her curse failed, she would fear the kingdom's lack of fear and respect even more.

Hm. "Listen well, all of you" she announces for the curse...

As for Merrywather being bad, many people agree evil should be stopped in certain ways, but when she wants to turn Maleficent into a frog, the film's idea of good says that isn't good. Actually Fauna's the one who says they can only do good, so maybe when Flora said they can't, she only meant they couldn't because they were powerful enough over Maleficent. Doubt it, though.

Hm. Maybe that's why they had to get the prince to kill the dragon. Their magic could only do good...despite the words "that evil die" being ordered on their magic.

[PatrickvD]

I haven't read the entire thread so it's possible this is already mentioned.

But in my opinion, the motives of Disney's villains got more complex over time. With some exceptions. Of Walt's era only Lady Tremaine and "man" in Bambi were realistic portrayals of villains. With very clear motives.

With Disney's renaissance also came more depth for its villains. Ursuala is much more fleshed out than villains that came before her because as we're introduced to her we find out about her history with King Triton. Jafar remains somewhat shallow as his motives are sort of vague. He simply wants to rule the world.

Scar, Frollo, Governour Radcliffe, Clayton and Judge Claude Frollo all have very clear motives and of some of them we even learn why they came to be the way they are.

[ajmrowland]

The thing about a climax is that it's not always a hero vs. a villain. Its always the last obstacle in the hero's quest. Walt's villains are really only obstacles. With the exception of Mally, most of them reflect real people, and thus, don't need a convoluted backstory to explain their prescence. For all we know, the queen was unloved growing up, so she only thought of power, looks, and material possessions. Lady tremain could've been a spoiled brat as a child, and Frollo could have been raised by religious nuts. Jafar seeks power because he's never supposedly known happiness. Shan Yu seeks revenge on the Emperor. The villains in Pinocchio are just con artists who happen to cross paths with our lead character. Shere Khan just probably seeks a good meal. Hades, Scar, Ursula, and Ratcliffe are quite well-explained.

[Disney's Divinity]

@ Disney's Divinity:

Still, I see a difference between Gaston and Frollo. Does Gaston even think he's doing something wrong? I don't think so. I think Gaston sees his won behavior as totally 'natural'. After all, isn't he a brave handsome huntsman that deserves to get the most beautiful girl in town? Whereas Frollo certainly knows what he's doing cannot be right. That's why he prays to God for forgiveness. That's why he tries to blame his faults on others: "the devil made me do it".

I thought Frollo's "Hellfire" concerned his lust for Esmeralda, not his other actions, though I guess you could see it as him blaming his lust and destruction of Paris on the Devil and the witch (Esmeralda). But, to me, he always seemed inclined to think the Gypsies were evil and that scourging Paris for them was a righteous act. Although, yes, he was still conflicted over something within himself, his basic humanity--which Gaston was not.

[SwordInTheStone777]

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.