Disney/Pixar "twist" villains (spoilers)

[Disneyphile]

A lot has been written about Disney and Pixar's recent reliance on the "twist" villain trope. So what are your favorites?

[bruno_wbt]

I'm sorry but none of them... I'm really tired of these "fake" villains. They have been using the same formula for a long time now... It’s upsetting…

I prefer the classic Disney Villains like the Evil Queen, Maleficent, Ursula, Jafar, Cruella...

[Mooky]

I voted for Stinky Pete because it came as a genuine surprise. Here you had a gentle, grandfather-type of character who up to his heel-turn was a voice of reason and was confined to his box, and to see him break out of that character (and his box) was truly shocking, or as shocking as something in a Disney/Pixar film can be. It was the first and only time the "twist" actually worked for me and left me truly surprised.

I guess Mr. Waternoose would be second, but because he was kind of cold and emotionless even before his reveal, its impact was watered down (no pun intended).

Rourke... Ehh, you could have seen it coming from a mile away. Everyone else on the list left practically no impression because by that point we came to expect a surprise villain in Pixar films. Lotso was Stinky Pete 2.0, Autopilot was another instance of the 'rogue AI' trope, and I can't even remember the guy from Cars 2. Now it has become an overused plot device and a lazy way to bring a story to its conclusion. Pixar just doesn't have a good track record with the way they write their villains, and to me, the only good villain they created was Hopper. I much prefer Disney villains.

[Disney's Divinity]

1. Mr. Waternoose
2. Hans
3. Buddy/Syndrome
4. Stinky Pete

My favorite of the "surprises" was Mr. Waternoose. Probably the fact that I was young when I first saw the film, but it did surprise me.

[Tangled]

No King Candy though? Because, out of the Disney ones, I thought he was the most well-executed. It just felt like the writers developed a good villain first and foremost rather than relying too heavily on the twist alone. Although I guess you could make an argument against him being a "twist" villain. His villainous qualities were gradually revealed through the course of the story rather than just during the film's last act.

[DisneyFan09]

Now it has become an overused plot device and a lazy way to bring a story to its conclusion. Pixar just doesn't have a good track record with the way they write their villains, and to me, the only good villain they created was Hopper. I much prefer Disney villains.

Agreed. I've probably said this before, but I'll say it again; If there's something Disney genuniely does better than Pixar, that is their villains.

[Tristy]

I would say King Candy because he was a pretty entertaining villain and actually he wasn't really that much of a "twist" villain since he did act pretty antagonistic throughout most of the film.

Stinky Pete was pretty good as a surprise villain because it was genuinely surprising at the time and also he had a pretty strong motivation.

Otherwise, yeah not really a fan of surprise villains. I know people keep acting like it's a unique thing where by this point it's become predictable.

[Mooky]

A really good short analysis of the recent trend in Disney and Pixar movies regarding villains:

Disney has a villain problem

[unprincess]

disagree with 2 things with that article
1- Princess and the Frog had a great villain!
2- while I agree that the Hans reveal fits the theme of the story, it was still terribly written.

[Mooky]

Yeah, I agree with you about Dr. Facilier. He's probably one of the best parts of PatF, and also the type of villain the article is nostalgic for. It's kind of weird the author doesn't recognize him as such.

[nomad2010]

I think the issue isn’t just a villain problem though, it’s that they’re making the same movie over and over again. It’s always a buddy road trip comedy. And what really bothers me is that they talk all these strong female characters up as being so independent and great role models, yet they all have a guy who is with them the entire way. To me, what made Beauty and the Beast and Little Mermaid so great was that the women went on their journey alone. Yes, they had help, but they were largely independent in everything that happened unlike Moana, Anna, Judy Hopps, Vanellope, etc.

We’re being fed the same movie over and over again, and I think years down the road, most of these movies aren’t going to be remembered. There’s no great villain to hate, there’s rarely a journey that feels fully fleshed out, and it’s always the same guy meets girl or girl meets guy, they hate each other, go on a journey, learn to respect one another, and both come out on top while defeating some villain we didn’t even know existed.

Disney’s run out of creativity, and taking risks. We see it everywhere these days from their animation to their live action movies which are primarily remakes.

I’d love another Ursula or Jafaf to truly despise. I’d love a Cruella to be disgusted with. But Disney doesn’t think the villain is important. And they’re wrong, because they’re what give their classics such amazingly high stakes. It’s why you really root for the characters. Without them, we just end up on another journey that doesn’t feel like we’re going anywhere but in a manufactured circle back to “alls well that ends well.”

[JeanGreyForever]

I can understand why the author of the article didn't put Facilier in the same category as the other villains, mainly because Disney doesn't do that either. He's not nearly as prominent as Ursula, Jafar, Cruella, Scar, etc. in marketing. Beyond that though, he really is one of the best parts of TPATF and the last classic Disney villain imo. I'm surprised the author ranked Gothel so high because Gothel represented the downwards turn of the Disney Villains for me.

I really hope with Lasseter gone that the twist villain trope will be abandoned. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Frozen 2 and Zootopia 2 kept it up.

[Farerb]

I guess Syndrome was a good villain, but somehow I don't consider him a twist villain.
Hans was pooorly written - we get the twist and then he becomes a one note villain - "I'm gonna take over Arendelle Muahahaha". I think they missed an opportunity here. They could've made him more complex, like he genuinely thinks that killing Elsa is for the greater good, which would be aligned with his personality at the start of the film.

[Farerb]

Do we consider John Lasseter as a "twist villain"?

[Tristy]

I would say King Candy is the best one since he seems to revel in his villainy.

But yes. I do agree this twist villain thing is really getting tired. And as someone has said, not knowing who the villain is does remove some of the stakes. Some people might say that having a twist villain makes it more realistic. Personally, I think what they're really thinking is: "But those villains were scary! But we can't say that because it doesn't sound professional enough." You can make a villain intimidating without him/her traumatizing children. Look at characters like Jafar and Hades. They were pretty imposing enough but they very rarely appear on any "Scariest Disney Moments" lists.

[Tristy]

Do we consider John Lasseter as a "twist villain"?

It almost makes me wonder if it was really the people under Lasseter who knew about his demons and the twist villains were a way of trying to tell us something.

[Mooky]

Part of the issue is the obvious pixarization of Disney, along with a general shift in the company's identity. It's apparent in the type of stories they tell now, the music they use, and of course the medium. Twist villains are just an extension of that. For example, while you could still thematically connect Disney of the '90s to, say, Disney of the '50s, Disney of the '10s seems so far removed even from the early millennium Disney, let alone something from 50 years ago. I don't know how much of that is a result of an organic growth, or a change in audiences' preferences, or all these IP acquisitions, but it's just kind of sad all around.

Do we consider John Lasseter as a "twist villain"?

[Sotiris]

I think the issue isn’t just a villain problem though, it’s that they’re making the same movie over and over again. It’s always a buddy road trip comedy. And what really bothers me is that they talk all these strong female characters up as being so independent and great role models, yet they all have a guy who is with them the entire way. To me, what made Beauty and the Beast and Little Mermaid so great was that the women went on their journey alone. Yes, they had help, but they were largely independent in everything that happened unlike Moana, Anna, Judy Hopps, Vanellope, etc.

We’re being fed the same movie over and over again, and I think years down the road, most of these movies aren’t going to be remembered. There’s no great villain to hate, there’s rarely a journey that feels fully fleshed out, and it’s always the same guy meets girl or girl meets guy, they hate each other, go on a journey, learn to respect one another, and both come out on top while defeating some villain we didn’t even know existed.

This! So much.

They could've made him more complex, like he genuinely thinks that killing Elsa is for the greater good, which would be aligned with his personality at the start of the film.

That's a great idea. A more nuanced approach like that would have added so much to the character.

Do we consider John Lasseter as a "twist villain"?

Oh, the irony. After creating so many twist villains for his movies, the ultimate twist villain turned out to be himself. Mr. Waternoose, Stinky Pete, and Lotso are the most similar to Lasseter.

For example, while you could still thematically connect Disney of the '90s to, say, Disney of the '50s, Disney of the '10s seems so far removed even from the early millennium Disney, let alone something from 50 years ago. I don't know how much of that is a result of an organic growth, or a change in audiences' preferences, or all these IP acquisitions, but it's just kind of sad all around.

That's true. Contemporary Disney feels very far removed from its past and its legacy.

[thedisneyspirit]

Will things change now that Ursula has been removed from power? I doubt it, considering this formula has made millions for Disney and the journalists can't stop praising the films, but still...

But it's like you guys said, the Revival gets praise, but I feel the films are mostly adored by journalists and critics by the messages they carry instead of the film as a whole or stuff like the story, the characters, etc. Moana only got praise bc of Hamilton and Polynesian culture, remove those things and nobody would talk about that film. Zootopia only got praise because of its timely message, and Big Hero 6 got praise because...It has pretty graphics?

I'm just wondering what "excuse" the journalists will bring up to praise Ralph 2.

Although I think Ernesto de la Cruz was a surprise villain that worked well at least in the context of his film. He ties into the old saying of celebrities having double lives, and we don't really "see" him until right before the truth is revealed, before all we know about him is Miguel's romantic view of him and the world adoring him. It'd made sense he'd built a different persona for the rest of the world to see.

[Farerb]

Although I think Ernesto de la Cruz was a surprise villain that worked well at least in the context of his film. He ties into the old saying of celebrities having double lives, and we don't really "see" him until right before the truth is revealed, before all we know about him is Miguel's romantic view of him and the world adoring him. It'd made sense he'd built a different persona for the rest of the world to see.

I actually think that Ernesto was a great twist which is very relevant today, because we as fans tend to idolize celebrities, but sometimes find out they are not so great people after all...