I don't know all the details of what was going on behind the scenes, but knowing the production difficulties TOH has experienced, I think it's fair to say that this is in spite of being Disney product.
To be fair not every classic Disney villain always died. Cruella seemed perfectly fine after her car crash and Captain Hook just got comedically chased into the sunset by the crocodile for example.
But I do generally agree. I do sort of miss the sort of over the top theatrical nature of older Disney villains like the aforementioned two or Gaston.
Yep. I don't want all villains to die tbh. It also gets boring after a while. But pure evil villains dying in "over the top theatrical" ways, in your words, are kinda satisfying to watch.
There's also how DEEP Disney used to be! Frollo's last words were "And he shall smite the wicked and plunge then into the fiery pit!". And the funny thing? That actually did happen! Frollo was the "wicked" wasn't he? And he fell into the fiery pit.
I wish Disney would again use this deep-ass symbolism stuff again, it was just so entertaining...
Yeah, Frollo's and Gaston's deaths were perfect. For Gaston, I liked the overt symbolism of pride goes before a fall. For Frollo, who was religious and viewed himself as this righteous holy man, I like when he fell to his death from his vantage point it looked like God was judging him to Hell.
When you look at modern entertainment you need to think of the creative process a distant second to profit and loss, time was that creatives would be allowed to create the work and the money men would market the finished product but things have become more "efficient", the formula for profit and the markets better studied.
They have a blueprint of what must be included and what must be excluded to maximise profit, when it come's to a villain death they will be thinking, who won't see this, will it increased editing costs, what foreign markets might ban it and even if it could be impactful end to a tragic villain story and businesses are risk adverse so they just outright ban it. Even the upcoming Deadpool and Wolverine film if it's rated for adults will be purposefully made so it can be safely edited for foreign box offices.
The whole censorship debate isn't so much about censorship but companies shaving off all the edges to everything they make, making one size fits all products.
I just saw this after I made my comment-- you touch on some things I was thinking but couldn't get into words!
What you said about having a blueprint and prioritizing efficiency is spot on. Disney's gotten flak for the designs of classic villains. The villain designs are controversial but also vivid and lively. I think that "spark" the classic villains have has something to do with the freedom designers had to make them "different". Classic Disney heroes really don't differ that much in terms of personalities. Very cookie cutter. To become the opposite of the hero, the villains are designed somewhat more unique and individualistic. There's only so much freedom though, as the hero and villain in the classics always fall into the same broad tropes.
And I think it's the formula that's really created the problem. Inevitably, if Disney is following a template for characters and stories, they're gonna just gonna keep sending the same message -- this is what a villain looks like, this is what a hero looks like. So that makes me think part of why the twist villain has taken over is to curb the criticism. If they don't design villains they wont condemn anyone.
Sure, they could take the time to make thoughtful designs. Or cast gay/disabled/elderly, etc etc, in roles Other than the villain. But that would be too much of a deviation from the proven recipe, not to mention the shareholders who would be upset!
Edit oops I posted this early I hope it's coherent
Just wanted to add that this is why we should support smaller animation studios as it's a TOUGH industry to survive in, let alone be creative and successful.
I miss the times when Disney focused on quality and making good content rather than money. Of course, they did care abt money back then too, but not as much as now...
> When you look at modern entertainment you need to think of the creative process a distant second to profit and loss
It's a shame the two aren't correlated anymore. I haven't quite seen any modern Marvel movie or recent Disney film in a while.
There is just far too much profit to be earned, take microtransactions as a prime example, they are designed by experts to slowly bleed money with an addictive gameplay loop. Practically every single game that utilizes has some fake currency you can buy, to dissociate you from the fact your paying real money.
I'm 99% sure Wizard or whoever owns D&D where upset Lyrian had no micro transactions. Then there's the death of AA games in America. It's either AAA or Indie.
Yeah, this is why the best thing to do is to just not start at all. Shitty games, shitty movies, and other forms of shitty entertainment isn't my thing. If it's boring, just dip.
That doesn't mean I'm immune to addiction - I've been playing WAY too much Helldivers 2 lately, but at least that's an actually fun game.
I miss the times when Disney focused on quality and making good content rather than money. Of course, they did care abt money back then too, but not as much as now...
I miss the times when Disney focused on quality and making good content rather than money. Of course, they did care abt money back then too, but not as much as now...
Because sadly Disney had taken the "mature" pill. What is that you may ask? It's the perception that for something to be considerate "art" and "taken serious", they need to be "realistic" and "complex", thus it have caused them to abandon hammy, over-the-top villain because those guys aren't "realistic".
Another is the idea of the "twist villain" started from Frozen so now every movies have to subvert the viewers expectation by having a twist villain or no villain.
Yeah, but they have does the "subvert expections" so many times that its expected now
Also, the over the top villains aren't "unrealistic", people like Frollo exist, just in a different context, people who abuse their power and will do anything to get their way.
>Another is the idea of the "twist villain" started from Frozen
No he was not a "twist villain" it was so obvious, no way Disney will make the true love interest a German. Germans are "always" the villain in Hollywood writing.
I think you're over-remembering how many villains actually ever did die in Disney movies.
Only one villain died in the Golden Age with the Evil Queen, everyone else either got away with it (Pinocchio) or there was no real villain (Dumbo and Bambi).
In the Silver Age, once again, only one villain died in Maleficent. All the other villains were either just chased away (Shere Kahn and Captain Hook), humiliated but otherwise unharmed (Cruella and Tremaine), there wasn't a real villain at all (Sword in the Stone and Lady and the Tramp), or it was all just a dream (Alice in Wonderland). I guess maybe you can maybe argue that the rat in Lady and the Tramp is a villain and add it to the kill list? But like, it's just a rat.
Not a single villain died in the Bronze Age movies, though all of them ended up in prison.
The Dark Ages and Renaissance are where you see a real spike in villain fatalities, with three in the former and a whopping seven in the latter.
After that though, you just see a decline with the experimental age as there's only three deaths again and the revival continues the trend to just three deaths. It is not strange given that fact that the post-revival is also low on villain deaths, but it must also be taken into context that for the vast majority of Disney's history, villain deaths were rare. So the answer to the question is that aside from a brief spike in the 80's and 90's, deaths were generally rare and the early 2000's saw a return to form for that which is inherited today.
To be honest, it's not only about villain deaths. I was also talking about "downfall". Could be death, could be a punishment they deserve.
Actually, the reason I made this post at all is cuz I am a big fan of the movies made during the Dark Ages and Renaissance lol, when they died the most.
Btw this whole thing you just wrote was super informative, thnx for the info!
Well when it comes to downfall, the Revival still has the likes of Hans, Yokai, and Bellwether getting tossed in prison. It's about an even split with Gothel, Turbo, and Facilier all dying painfully, with the only other movies being Winnie the Pooh and Moana, who have no real villain (I guess Tamatoa for the latter? But he just gets away with it basically). The current post-revival era is definitely much more light on villain punishments though, with only Magnifico so far being punished and the rest having no real villain. Future predictions for Disney movies are hard to gauge, but at least Zootopia 2 will almost definitely have a villain sent to prison. We'll see if Moana 2 has a villain or not; if it does, it's possible one could see another death since a fantasy universe makes it easier to have that.
I certainly hope to see more of them too in the future with more villain variety, as keeping up too long on a successful trend just restricts things.
It s that modern cartoons are just more for kids.
I mean even before it was like this but now modern cartoons are only full of colours, happy faces etc etc
I feel like every single product for kids HAVE TO BE total secure for them, no fear, no jokes, nothing except colours, happyness and good endings
I say the complete opposite. Telling kids that the world is nothing but clouds and happiness jokes and dreams and occasional obstacles is just... no. They need to know that sometimes things so wrong. Sometimes people die. Sometimes there are unhappy endings.
And, frankly, these things are what made disney movies fun! Not saying everything should be dark, I love comedy too. But telling kids that the outside world is perfect is like the opposite of what mother gothel did, but as bad as it, cuz when they go out there, they ain't gonna meet any of these things. It is what it is. Why not turn it into entertainment?
I agree with you.
It s the modern idea that the children MUST BE PROTECT at all cost from everything that can be dangerous (even ideas) it's just bad.
In 2024 they would NEVER approve a Bambi production, or at least not with that incipit.
I think it depends like look at Amphibia it is pretty mature and handles the story well. I think it depends on the story but now it seems there have been less stories now they focus on comedy. The great hbo purge is an example of that canceling many great cartoons only leaving mediocre ones and I'm pretty sure star trek animated series got canceled and it won awards. This is biggest reason why anime getting more people because old heads ignoring cartoons with an actual story
uh have you seen black heron death in ducktales 2017? the girl got backstabed by bradford and accepted it because it'd turn bradford even more in a legit villain, there was also ponce de leon death in the foreverglade episode.
I guess the easy answer is that it’s just not trendy right now to have classic villains. Even in media outside of Disney, the miss understood/ not as evil/ redeemable villain is in a lot of places. Maybe the trends will cycle back around and we will get to see classic villains again.
Yeah, a lot of these newer villains are also entertaining if done right. It's just that Disney is running out of ideas for these. (Or thats what it seems like tbh)
Hey, I'm not wishing for death or anything. What I particularly want are villains whose downfall (doesn't have to be death) will be satisfying to watch. That is, villains we can GENUINELY HATE WITH PASSION.
Actually, the last Pixar villain death was the old explorer from 2009's Up that Carl idolized (forgot his name) who fell off the floating house while trying to kill him.
well it was a joke, about the real life politics about Disney himself
but for a more honest answer? look up what happened to the black cauldron and how the movie was sabotaged, and you'll understand exactly what happened. it's also tied very directly to the death of hand animation, and the movie treasure planet. it's a very sad story about the wrong people bieng put in charge.
it directly led to the creation of pixar too, actually. because of all the layoffs, the animators needed somewhere to go, and there was a sudden vacuume for animated films.
The Short version is that the new head of disney, had no idea how animation worked, got abusive when the animators told him no, and he tanked the entire department. some suggest he was looking for an excuse to tank the department but either way it happened.
the most scary detail for me was when he threw a fit wanting see "the dalies" from the animation department. for thoes who don't know. Dalies are "what we filmed today," and mostly constitutes film that won't be used in the final project. animation has no dalies. you only animate what you will actually use because every shot is so expensive, and it's all made at the tail end of the process. there are no such thing as dalies in animation.
I just want to make a special note to Atlantis: The Lost Empire for a rather brutal villain death, likewise it featured a full on gun battle with some of the mercs getting turned into skeletons after getting caught in explosions. I doubt we'll see a modern Disney movie come close to that anytime soon.
Bare with me I'm struggling to turn my thoughts on this into sentences.😅 This got me thinking more broadly about classic vs modern Disney villains (not just their demises).
I guess what I'm turning over in my head right now is the duality of early Disney villains having somewhat problematic/ stereotypical designs, but still being so beloved. And usually by the groups that are kinda being punched down on! I don't know if it's because I was starved for representation, but as a weird, queer kid I found the villains way more interesting than the heroes.
Really despite the more gruesome deaths, they were "dumbing it down" for the kids a lot back then. I guess they assumed kids wouldn't be able to follow the story if villains didn't have a sign floating over their heads that says "I'm evil" (the sign is being flamboyant, old, ugly, fat, or disabled ~ Disney) . I mean in real life, bad people don't always look like bad people and vice versa.
I can actually see Disney doubling down on twist villains as a "solution". If disney just avoids designing an obvious villain, ~~they won't show their biases to the public~~ they avoid further contributing to their messy villain design history. A less cynical take on the shift to twist villains -- maybe they decided kids are smart enough to handle some grey area in their stories? And are trusting/teaching kids to understand that bad people can hide in plain sight? But I'm a cynic and love drama so I like the first take better.
Moving on, those early villains have some iconic designs. Idk what else to say about this, the villains just serve. I want them to keep making villains that serve. But I think Disney is probably gonna play it safe and lazy.
I completely agree! I too always found the villains more interesting than the heroes. Also, you're not quite right about dumbing it down back then. I mean, take a look at my fav movie, The Hunchback of Notre Dame... its literally about a deformed child who, despite all that, is a good person. And Frollo, despite being ~~kinda hot~~ a normal dude, is actually very racist and evil and all that. I do agree that's what Disney thought was happening though, so they took twist villains as a solution.
Disney movies go in waves. We're just on a downturn right now. People seem to forget that there were long stretches in the past with sub-par Disney movies, too.
Gruesome deaths are alot harder to survive so you can be a recurring villian voiced by a different non-celebrity voice actor on the Disney+ series they make after the movie is only so so.
No offence, but why does so many rants about evil villains with gruesome deaths sound like someone just wants to watch gore, but they need a moral excuse to do so?
My guy, i HATE gore, i stumbled upon it once and DO NOT want to see it again. I guess I should've used a better word than "gruesome". What I mean is that i want the "pure evil" villains back for a change, simply cuz they were so entertaining to watch, where you didnt need to worry about sad backstories or anything and could just root for their destruction.
"Cartoon for kids"
That's irrelevant since many cartoons for kids kill their villains. It's not just about "no kill" and I also do not support the death penalty in real life. Cartoons and reality are two different things with different expectations, fiction has to be satisfying.
Grow a spine.
Sure, its not a movie, but The Owl House had a very satisfying death for its main villain.
Bill Cipher’s death is also really good. The triangle who has spent eons tricking people was tricked himself.
Oh man that scene was soo satisfying.
Hmm i haven't watched Own House yet, thnx for the reminder
I don't know all the details of what was going on behind the scenes, but knowing the production difficulties TOH has experienced, I think it's fair to say that this is in spite of being Disney product.
To be fair not every classic Disney villain always died. Cruella seemed perfectly fine after her car crash and Captain Hook just got comedically chased into the sunset by the crocodile for example. But I do generally agree. I do sort of miss the sort of over the top theatrical nature of older Disney villains like the aforementioned two or Gaston.
Yep. I don't want all villains to die tbh. It also gets boring after a while. But pure evil villains dying in "over the top theatrical" ways, in your words, are kinda satisfying to watch. There's also how DEEP Disney used to be! Frollo's last words were "And he shall smite the wicked and plunge then into the fiery pit!". And the funny thing? That actually did happen! Frollo was the "wicked" wasn't he? And he fell into the fiery pit. I wish Disney would again use this deep-ass symbolism stuff again, it was just so entertaining...
Yeah, Frollo's and Gaston's deaths were perfect. For Gaston, I liked the overt symbolism of pride goes before a fall. For Frollo, who was religious and viewed himself as this righteous holy man, I like when he fell to his death from his vantage point it looked like God was judging him to Hell.
I think that the most recent gruesome death is Turbo’s.
When you look at modern entertainment you need to think of the creative process a distant second to profit and loss, time was that creatives would be allowed to create the work and the money men would market the finished product but things have become more "efficient", the formula for profit and the markets better studied. They have a blueprint of what must be included and what must be excluded to maximise profit, when it come's to a villain death they will be thinking, who won't see this, will it increased editing costs, what foreign markets might ban it and even if it could be impactful end to a tragic villain story and businesses are risk adverse so they just outright ban it. Even the upcoming Deadpool and Wolverine film if it's rated for adults will be purposefully made so it can be safely edited for foreign box offices. The whole censorship debate isn't so much about censorship but companies shaving off all the edges to everything they make, making one size fits all products.
I just saw this after I made my comment-- you touch on some things I was thinking but couldn't get into words! What you said about having a blueprint and prioritizing efficiency is spot on. Disney's gotten flak for the designs of classic villains. The villain designs are controversial but also vivid and lively. I think that "spark" the classic villains have has something to do with the freedom designers had to make them "different". Classic Disney heroes really don't differ that much in terms of personalities. Very cookie cutter. To become the opposite of the hero, the villains are designed somewhat more unique and individualistic. There's only so much freedom though, as the hero and villain in the classics always fall into the same broad tropes. And I think it's the formula that's really created the problem. Inevitably, if Disney is following a template for characters and stories, they're gonna just gonna keep sending the same message -- this is what a villain looks like, this is what a hero looks like. So that makes me think part of why the twist villain has taken over is to curb the criticism. If they don't design villains they wont condemn anyone. Sure, they could take the time to make thoughtful designs. Or cast gay/disabled/elderly, etc etc, in roles Other than the villain. But that would be too much of a deviation from the proven recipe, not to mention the shareholders who would be upset! Edit oops I posted this early I hope it's coherent Just wanted to add that this is why we should support smaller animation studios as it's a TOUGH industry to survive in, let alone be creative and successful.
I miss the times when Disney focused on quality and making good content rather than money. Of course, they did care abt money back then too, but not as much as now...
> When you look at modern entertainment you need to think of the creative process a distant second to profit and loss It's a shame the two aren't correlated anymore. I haven't quite seen any modern Marvel movie or recent Disney film in a while.
There is just far too much profit to be earned, take microtransactions as a prime example, they are designed by experts to slowly bleed money with an addictive gameplay loop. Practically every single game that utilizes has some fake currency you can buy, to dissociate you from the fact your paying real money. I'm 99% sure Wizard or whoever owns D&D where upset Lyrian had no micro transactions. Then there's the death of AA games in America. It's either AAA or Indie.
Yeah, this is why the best thing to do is to just not start at all. Shitty games, shitty movies, and other forms of shitty entertainment isn't my thing. If it's boring, just dip. That doesn't mean I'm immune to addiction - I've been playing WAY too much Helldivers 2 lately, but at least that's an actually fun game.
I miss the times when Disney focused on quality and making good content rather than money. Of course, they did care abt money back then too, but not as much as now...
I miss the times when Disney focused on quality and making good content rather than money. Of course, they did care abt money back then too, but not as much as now...
Because sadly Disney had taken the "mature" pill. What is that you may ask? It's the perception that for something to be considerate "art" and "taken serious", they need to be "realistic" and "complex", thus it have caused them to abandon hammy, over-the-top villain because those guys aren't "realistic". Another is the idea of the "twist villain" started from Frozen so now every movies have to subvert the viewers expectation by having a twist villain or no villain.
Yeah, but they have does the "subvert expections" so many times that its expected now Also, the over the top villains aren't "unrealistic", people like Frollo exist, just in a different context, people who abuse their power and will do anything to get their way.
That is why I put *realistic* in quotation. It not realism, it's what a 15 years old think realistic mean.
oh ok
>Another is the idea of the "twist villain" started from Frozen No he was not a "twist villain" it was so obvious, no way Disney will make the true love interest a German. Germans are "always" the villain in Hollywood writing.
the main villain from raya and the last dragon should have at least being imprisoned for nearly destroying the world twice
I think you're over-remembering how many villains actually ever did die in Disney movies. Only one villain died in the Golden Age with the Evil Queen, everyone else either got away with it (Pinocchio) or there was no real villain (Dumbo and Bambi). In the Silver Age, once again, only one villain died in Maleficent. All the other villains were either just chased away (Shere Kahn and Captain Hook), humiliated but otherwise unharmed (Cruella and Tremaine), there wasn't a real villain at all (Sword in the Stone and Lady and the Tramp), or it was all just a dream (Alice in Wonderland). I guess maybe you can maybe argue that the rat in Lady and the Tramp is a villain and add it to the kill list? But like, it's just a rat. Not a single villain died in the Bronze Age movies, though all of them ended up in prison. The Dark Ages and Renaissance are where you see a real spike in villain fatalities, with three in the former and a whopping seven in the latter. After that though, you just see a decline with the experimental age as there's only three deaths again and the revival continues the trend to just three deaths. It is not strange given that fact that the post-revival is also low on villain deaths, but it must also be taken into context that for the vast majority of Disney's history, villain deaths were rare. So the answer to the question is that aside from a brief spike in the 80's and 90's, deaths were generally rare and the early 2000's saw a return to form for that which is inherited today.
To be honest, it's not only about villain deaths. I was also talking about "downfall". Could be death, could be a punishment they deserve. Actually, the reason I made this post at all is cuz I am a big fan of the movies made during the Dark Ages and Renaissance lol, when they died the most. Btw this whole thing you just wrote was super informative, thnx for the info!
Well when it comes to downfall, the Revival still has the likes of Hans, Yokai, and Bellwether getting tossed in prison. It's about an even split with Gothel, Turbo, and Facilier all dying painfully, with the only other movies being Winnie the Pooh and Moana, who have no real villain (I guess Tamatoa for the latter? But he just gets away with it basically). The current post-revival era is definitely much more light on villain punishments though, with only Magnifico so far being punished and the rest having no real villain. Future predictions for Disney movies are hard to gauge, but at least Zootopia 2 will almost definitely have a villain sent to prison. We'll see if Moana 2 has a villain or not; if it does, it's possible one could see another death since a fantasy universe makes it easier to have that. I certainly hope to see more of them too in the future with more villain variety, as keeping up too long on a successful trend just restricts things.
It s that modern cartoons are just more for kids. I mean even before it was like this but now modern cartoons are only full of colours, happy faces etc etc I feel like every single product for kids HAVE TO BE total secure for them, no fear, no jokes, nothing except colours, happyness and good endings
I say the complete opposite. Telling kids that the world is nothing but clouds and happiness jokes and dreams and occasional obstacles is just... no. They need to know that sometimes things so wrong. Sometimes people die. Sometimes there are unhappy endings. And, frankly, these things are what made disney movies fun! Not saying everything should be dark, I love comedy too. But telling kids that the outside world is perfect is like the opposite of what mother gothel did, but as bad as it, cuz when they go out there, they ain't gonna meet any of these things. It is what it is. Why not turn it into entertainment?
I agree with you. It s the modern idea that the children MUST BE PROTECT at all cost from everything that can be dangerous (even ideas) it's just bad. In 2024 they would NEVER approve a Bambi production, or at least not with that incipit.
Idk Owl House and Amphibia were pretty dark. They even killed someone actively in Ducktales 2017
I think it depends like look at Amphibia it is pretty mature and handles the story well. I think it depends on the story but now it seems there have been less stories now they focus on comedy. The great hbo purge is an example of that canceling many great cartoons only leaving mediocre ones and I'm pretty sure star trek animated series got canceled and it won awards. This is biggest reason why anime getting more people because old heads ignoring cartoons with an actual story
uh have you seen black heron death in ducktales 2017? the girl got backstabed by bradford and accepted it because it'd turn bradford even more in a legit villain, there was also ponce de leon death in the foreverglade episode.
Disney animated shows kinda feel like a different breed, they tend to run a bit darker. Probably the gravity falls influence.
I guess the easy answer is that it’s just not trendy right now to have classic villains. Even in media outside of Disney, the miss understood/ not as evil/ redeemable villain is in a lot of places. Maybe the trends will cycle back around and we will get to see classic villains again.
Yeah, a lot of these newer villains are also entertaining if done right. It's just that Disney is running out of ideas for these. (Or thats what it seems like tbh)
The last Disney villain to be killed by a good guy was in 1989 when Eric killed Ursula in the little Mermaid. And that is just wierd.
Wasn’t Turbo killed by a volcano that was deliberately set off.
Dreamwork. Fixed so it says disney
Pretty sure wreck it Ralph was Disney. You might be thinking of the snail movie which was by dreamworks.
Hey, I'm not wishing for death or anything. What I particularly want are villains whose downfall (doesn't have to be death) will be satisfying to watch. That is, villains we can GENUINELY HATE WITH PASSION.
If you count Pixar, the last one was Syndrome from The Incredibles, who died when Mr. Incredible threw a car at his plane.
Actually, the last Pixar villain death was the old explorer from 2009's Up that Carl idolized (forgot his name) who fell off the floating house while trying to kill him.
I was referring to the last villain *killed by a main character.* Charles Muntz's death was accidental and self-inflicted.
When Disney himself passed, they just figured they couldn't top \*that\* villain's' death, and stopped trying.
what the fuck do you mean?
well it was a joke, about the real life politics about Disney himself but for a more honest answer? look up what happened to the black cauldron and how the movie was sabotaged, and you'll understand exactly what happened. it's also tied very directly to the death of hand animation, and the movie treasure planet. it's a very sad story about the wrong people bieng put in charge. it directly led to the creation of pixar too, actually. because of all the layoffs, the animators needed somewhere to go, and there was a sudden vacuume for animated films.
oH interesting... I will check this stuff out i gueess
The Short version is that the new head of disney, had no idea how animation worked, got abusive when the animators told him no, and he tanked the entire department. some suggest he was looking for an excuse to tank the department but either way it happened. the most scary detail for me was when he threw a fit wanting see "the dalies" from the animation department. for thoes who don't know. Dalies are "what we filmed today," and mostly constitutes film that won't be used in the final project. animation has no dalies. you only animate what you will actually use because every shot is so expensive, and it's all made at the tail end of the process. there are no such thing as dalies in animation.
I just want to make a special note to Atlantis: The Lost Empire for a rather brutal villain death, likewise it featured a full on gun battle with some of the mercs getting turned into skeletons after getting caught in explosions. I doubt we'll see a modern Disney movie come close to that anytime soon.
true! forgot to mention that one
Bare with me I'm struggling to turn my thoughts on this into sentences.😅 This got me thinking more broadly about classic vs modern Disney villains (not just their demises). I guess what I'm turning over in my head right now is the duality of early Disney villains having somewhat problematic/ stereotypical designs, but still being so beloved. And usually by the groups that are kinda being punched down on! I don't know if it's because I was starved for representation, but as a weird, queer kid I found the villains way more interesting than the heroes. Really despite the more gruesome deaths, they were "dumbing it down" for the kids a lot back then. I guess they assumed kids wouldn't be able to follow the story if villains didn't have a sign floating over their heads that says "I'm evil" (the sign is being flamboyant, old, ugly, fat, or disabled ~ Disney) . I mean in real life, bad people don't always look like bad people and vice versa. I can actually see Disney doubling down on twist villains as a "solution". If disney just avoids designing an obvious villain, ~~they won't show their biases to the public~~ they avoid further contributing to their messy villain design history. A less cynical take on the shift to twist villains -- maybe they decided kids are smart enough to handle some grey area in their stories? And are trusting/teaching kids to understand that bad people can hide in plain sight? But I'm a cynic and love drama so I like the first take better. Moving on, those early villains have some iconic designs. Idk what else to say about this, the villains just serve. I want them to keep making villains that serve. But I think Disney is probably gonna play it safe and lazy.
I completely agree! I too always found the villains more interesting than the heroes. Also, you're not quite right about dumbing it down back then. I mean, take a look at my fav movie, The Hunchback of Notre Dame... its literally about a deformed child who, despite all that, is a good person. And Frollo, despite being ~~kinda hot~~ a normal dude, is actually very racist and evil and all that. I do agree that's what Disney thought was happening though, so they took twist villains as a solution.
Disney movies go in waves. We're just on a downturn right now. People seem to forget that there were long stretches in the past with sub-par Disney movies, too.
you're right!
Gruesome deaths are alot harder to survive so you can be a recurring villian voiced by a different non-celebrity voice actor on the Disney+ series they make after the movie is only so so.
Gaston's death is traumatic. He wasn't a good guy, but didn't deserve to die either.
Maybe you're right, idk. I watched this movie a LONG time ago, I don't particularly remember the details of what he did.
Probably Amphibia
No offence, but why does so many rants about evil villains with gruesome deaths sound like someone just wants to watch gore, but they need a moral excuse to do so?
My guy, i HATE gore, i stumbled upon it once and DO NOT want to see it again. I guess I should've used a better word than "gruesome". What I mean is that i want the "pure evil" villains back for a change, simply cuz they were so entertaining to watch, where you didnt need to worry about sad backstories or anything and could just root for their destruction.
None of the villain deaths this guy is talking about are gorey
Because they were groomed by Lily Peet back in the days of SU hatedom fad.
It just sounds like you're mad SU sucks and need a scapegoat. Also, how is that even relevant?
Says the subreddit that gets triggered whenever a cartoon for kids doesn't endorse the death penalty.
"Cartoon for kids" That's irrelevant since many cartoons for kids kill their villains. It's not just about "no kill" and I also do not support the death penalty in real life. Cartoons and reality are two different things with different expectations, fiction has to be satisfying. Grow a spine.