I miss villains who know they're evil, revel in it, and have the audacity to spit on their own tragic backstories.

Take the "sym" out of "sympathetic" and you've perfectly described modern Disney villains.

“Dalmatians killed my mom” is still, unironically, one of the dumbest villain motivations I’ve ever heard.

You know there's evil in a corporation when it makes movies that say "oh, the villain wasn't THAT bad."

People forget you can have a sympathetic backstory AND STILL BE an irredeemable monster.

The biggest problem with Disney's ''sympathetic'' villains: - Retroactively trying to make a villain into a misunderstood hero. ''Remember the original villains? Well, now you should feel bad for them and stupid for thinking they were evil in the first place.'' - Even when they're supposed to be likable they still are terrible. They're mean, do terrible things and we are supposed to feel bad for them because they have a sad backstory? Paraphrasing Rocket the Racoon ''Boo hoo! Your mommy is dead? It's not an excuse to be a dick!'' - Speaking of backstories! Modern Disney can't tell a subtle story. The new backstories are so over-the-top tragic and edgy that they unintentionally end up being funny. Cruella's mother being dropped kicked off a cliff by the dalmatians comes to mind. - Also, contrived and stupid. It's really hard to feel sympathy for someone if most of their problems come from their actions and instead of acknowledging it and changing for the better they go ''You destroyed my life!'' and go on a path of revenge. Why is Cruella homeless as a child, shouldn't the police find her and put her in foster care or an orphanage? I guess ''My mother was pushed off a cliff by dogs.'' would make people think she's crazy. Edit: - I forgot to mention how by trying to make villains sympathetic the writers turn ''heroes'' into terrible people. Peter Pan was best friends with Captain Hook but left him alone to wander the seas looking for his mother and when he come back as an adult Peter cut off his hand. I want Hook to kill this little psycho and save the poor children. It reads like those fanfictions about Hook being the lost boy. But even those fanfics are better! - It also takes away from their threatening presence. Scar in the remake is now a pussy (wink wink) who sounds like he's about to cry when killing Mufasa and an incel who can't get over that Sarabi choose Mufasa over him.

Imagine trying to make a unhinged woman who wants to skin puppies “sympathetic” huh girl bye

It's one thing to write a sympathetic villain that's MADE to be sympathetic from the ground up. It's another thing to take a pre-established villain who's known for commiting and/or wanting to commit legitimately heinous actions and contort them into something unrecognizable so the audience can "feel sorry for them". This goes double if the heroes are rewritten to make them look worse. And I think that's the reason why people are so DONE with this trope. Not because it can't work, but because Disney has both oversaturated it and is doing it exceptionally bad. Little wonder why Jack Horner and Death are all the rage nowadays.

Davy Jones was Disney's best sympathetic villain

People like villains because they represent evil that is always present in the world. We like seeing the battle of good triumphing evil because of the clear threat they present. These ‘sympathetic’ villains are unrealistic because not everyone has good intentions and ironically makes these new movies less relatable to the audience. Good to know other studios are aware of this!👏

When Disney made their iconic villains sympathetic it made me loose faith in Disney. As Disney has forgotten about what made their villains compelling, memorable and entertaining to see.

Cruella's backstory of "Dalmatians killed my mother" has major "Singing killed my grandma, okay?" vibes.

DreamWorks still knows how to make a true villain nowadays.

Modern Writers confuse a sympathetic Villain with a more complex Villain. Bringing more complexity to a Villain is just fine as long as the story can hold on to more complexity in general.

Sympathetic villains can work. Just not when Disney is doing them.

I truly need more "tragic" villains that are sympathetic in that you can understand their motivations, but are still villains to the very end and do not wish to be redeemed as they may genuinely believe they're doing nothing wrong. I'd love to see that

Disney's fundamental misconception is that they think in order to love a character, we have to like them. We love OG Cruella, Ursula, Scar, Captain Hook etc BECAUSE of their villainy. We don't like them, but we still love to watch them.

The only sympathetic villain I am willing to love is Ramsess in the prince of Egypt

I’m sick of the sympathetic villain trope. I want villains who are evil just to be evil. Not every person is going to have a sympathetic backstory for why they commit terrible actions.

I think a sympathetic villain has to have 3 things to their character. 1. Have a good reason for what they are doing these evil things (doing bad things for a good cause). 2. Not having them kill people on purpose (it can be an accident), though this could be risky. 3. Have a change of heart or redeem themselves. Now with Disney's Villains like Cruella, Maleficent, and Captain Hook, no, you cannot make them sympathetic. And yet, Disney decided to do that and made more sympathetic villains that no one asked for. And none of them fit my criteria.

Disney doesn't know _how_ to make a villain sympathetic without also making them secretly good deep down. They could never make a character like Mr. Freeze, or Madara Uchiha, or the Phantom of the Opera, because they cannot separate "sympathetic" from "redeemable". Disney can only do the one villain archetype they've always done, mustache-twirling finger-twiddling evil-for-the-sake-of-evil bastard, and anything else is too far outside their comfort zone.

Modern Disney movies have terrible villains, but the TVA side doesn't slack: Belos is one of my favorite villains of all time, alongside Bill Cipher

I can't wait for the Princess and the Frog remake where Disney tries to portray Dr. Facilier as a sympathetic three-dimensional villain and Tiana as a one-dimensional girl boss.

Forgiveness isn't a bad message, but if you want a villain to be forgiven. They need to *show* they are willing to change and do good. I love a good redemption arc, but it needs to actually be an arc. The villain, needs to choose selflessness over selfishness of their own accord. And they have to do it without the hero's trust. This is why I love Toaru so much, not only do you have the villains who don't get redeemed and die or get imprisoned. But kamachi is also the king of redeemable, and sympathetic villains. One of his main protags starts an antag villain. And we get to see him grow from monster to literal angel. Another of his villains is arguably one of the cruelest and worst ones. Literally pulling the classic, eternal torment trick on the hero. However, not only is her motive understandable. (God lost in a world of her own creation with no way home and no one who'd understand her.) But she also changes, she *chooses* to give up her goal and bring the hero back to his home *knowing* she will be killed. Nothing is wrong with a sympathetic villain. Disney is just bad at them

I hate how Namaari, the villain who caused SO MUCH TROUBLE during the course of the film, does something helpful at the end and NEVER ONCE APOLOGIZES FOR HER ACTIONS THAT SHE DID

Can’t wait for life action Hunchback of Notre Dame remake with sympathetic Frollo

King Candy/Turbo is not really a Twist villain tho, he is a Twist character. By that I mean, during all of the movie we know he is a bad guy, the movie doesn't hide from us that he is the villain, the only thing that it's revealed is his identity

Disney has become the twist villain in its own story.

I think the theory behind the sympathetic villain is because we want to know their motivations for doing something that clearly isn't good. I think a well done example is in Into the Spiderverse with Kingpin. He's not a good guy, but it seems random for him to want to open a rift between worlds, but you learn it's because he's looking for his deceased family, and he'll do anything to get them back, not a far stretch for him as he already was villainous. His reason is understandable, it is sympathetic in a way, but he's not a misunderstood person who comes across as bad. He's just a bad guy who loved his wife and kid.

I think the Once Upon A Time TV Show did better than Disney when giving iconic villains their backstories in live-action version.

I can't believe they made Iracaberh the queen of hearts sympathetic! She decapitated people for making her mad and her story comes down to my sister lied about me stealing deserts and I hurt my head its her fault.

This is the reason I like the live-action remake of the Jungle Book, Shere Khan is still a villain, in fact, the filmmakers doubled down on his villany, they made Shere Khan more wicked and dangerous compared to the original character. However, we have to remember Shere Khan was a tiger, similar to Scar, who was also a non-sympathetic villain, plus there is also Jafar and Gaston both of whom have no redemption arcs, I suspect there is villain favouritism, if the writers' like said character, they will retcon them into being sympathetic. Redemption arcs can be written well, but it has to have a purpose to the story's plot, simply writing them into being good all along despite villainous deeds is a cop-out, however, I am rather glad there have been some unredeemed antagonists who get their comeuppance: Bill Cypher and Philip Wittebane a.k.a. Emperor Belos.

What's sad is you can make villains relatable and still increadably villainous. Cruella could have been really good if they didn't push so hard on the dead mom/villain was my parent trope. If they went more of a Devil wears Prada approach, but when she sees she's becoming a fashion monster, she fully commits to the role.

Callaghan is such a great shame, actually. When I first watched Big Hero 6 (which I thought was okay), I actually liked him a lot. His mysterious villain design is fantastic, the way he manipulates the microbots with small flicks of his hand is fantastic. And the moment when he is unmasked as Callaghan, too, is fantastic. He would have made for a fantastic sympathetic villain with a deeply understandable motive ... if only they had done one of two things. Have him reluctant to kill his students, or anyone besides Krei - or track his descent into madness, to show that he is completely out of his mind by the time of the confrontation. That's all it would have taken. God, what a pity.

It’s honestly hilarious to me how most writing gurus and writing tips that I’ve read regarding villains always say “NEVER MAKE A VILLAIN EVIL JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING EVIL!!!!11111!!!1! NOBODY WILL LIKE IT AND EVERYONE WILL HATE YOU IF YOU DO THIS BECAUSE YOU’RE A BAD WRITER IF YOU DO THIS BECAUSE IT’S SO CLICHÈ AAAAAAAA-“ And yet here is virtually everyone in this comment section calling for these kind of villains again after the sympathetic ones were oversaturated so badly in modern media.

The core issue isn't that they are made sympathetic it's that they make them sympathetic and give them the N word pass, Joker the 2nd most popular villain movie gave us a deep dive into how he became a psychopath but at the end of the day he's still the villain that needs to be locked up, Thanos Infinity War made us understand why Thanos did what he did and what he was willing to sacrifice to achieve that goal but he's still a villain that needs to be stopped by the good guys. And Hollywood have an equal problem with their protags, Wanda kept a village hostage where they asked to die yet "no one will know what you sacrificed" - Monica Rambeu excuser of women.

I feel like Malificent is an exception though. It was a good movie. I like how instead of the Prince breaking the curse, it was Malificent. You rarely see that kind of love in movies.

Not Disney making Cruella's mom be killed by dogs 😭😭😭

Studio Ghibli is great with sympathetic or misunderstood villainy in their stories, but Disney can't seem to pull it off. I wonder if it's because Disney is unwilling to let go of it's original formula or if the audience just expects a classic villain from their stories?

Disney has loss completely their writing skills of how the write a compelling, memorable and evil villain, they keep scrubbing something that they should know better than anyone how to do it. The last time I enjoy a villain in a Disney film was King Candy, and is just sad what they have done with their villains specially on live action.........even Cruella a film that at least for me, I enjoy it (watch it in home to keep my promise of never watch these in theaters), even this drop the ball making Cruella a sympathetic character, one of the most evil badguys in the Disney Rogue and reduce to....Puppy lover or something? She even keep some Dalmatians...wt heck?..............My last hope is WISH, if they not bring a full despicable and entertaining villain, Disney is 100% gone.

Honestly, I think Disney's writers should watch more anime and play some classic JRPGs. There are so many great examples of villains whose backgrounds you can empathize with, whose pain and base wish you can appreciate, but who you still can't call anything but evil, complete with various actions that leave you convinced that the person needs to be stopped at all costs. One particularly popular old RPG had a villain who was originally a hero, whose pain is often palpable to the point that you kind of feel like you're committing an act of mercy when you finally kill him, but despite this you always feel, from start to finish, that he is truly evil. A villain can commit atrocities that leave him completely irredeemable in the eyes of the audience, harbor goals that the audience can't deny must be prevented at all costs, and still have you feeling for him, just a bit. But there's a big difference between that and creating a villain that's actually a misunderstood good guy.

I can't wait to hear about how they "expand" on Ursula's backstory with Triton by making her more "misunderstood" and "sympathetic" in the upcoming garbage remake of TLM. I'll bet they'll give her a sob-story of how Triton was wrong to banish her because she just wanted to help the merfolk after all. 🙄 Christ, that artwork of her in the art-book about to impaled by ARIEL instead of ERIC (ugh) even makes her look sad or scared. So pathetic. I miss when Disney villains didn't NEED to be sympathetic or misunderstood. When they were just flamboyant, manipulative, sadistic, psychotic, and unapologetically evil. That's one of the things I loved about Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, where we had three types of villains opposing the heroes: Jack Horner, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and Death. Jack was the classic flamboyant, humorous, sadistic, entertainingly evil villain we've seen in earlier animated Disney films, Goldie and the bears were also humorous and antagonizing but not entirely evil and were eventually redeemed in the end, and Death was the much more serious, threatening, antagonistic force that balanced them out. Give us back the Frollo's, dammit! *Edit 5/31/23:* Yeah, I recognize that it's been a few weeks since the remake first arrived to theaters. I know now that the remake didn't give Ursula the same treatment as Maleficent, Hook, or Cruella, but they still did her dirty by having her give Ariel amnesia, unintentionally making her look unconvinced in her own plan. In the original, Ursula set up Ariel to fail the moment she made the deal. She was so convinced that Eric wouldn't kiss Ariel because she was mute, that she underestimated the mermaid's determination and good looks. It didn't occur to her that Ariel would be that good enough to convince Eric to kiss her without a voice, which was why she resorted to cheating via transforming into Vanessa and brainwashing Eric with Ariel's voice. By giving her plot-convenient amnesia so Ariel can keep forgetting she's supposed to kiss Eric (solely so the stupid creators can hammer home their BS claim that the original "Kiss The Girl" was about "forcing Eric onto Ariel" while conveniently forgetting that nonverbal consent exists), it makes Ursula look less confident in her own plan, it takes away Ariel's own agency as a character because SHE has to be constantly reminded by other characters to kiss Eric, and why doesn't Ursula just give Ariel amnesia anyway to keep her hostage to lure Triton into a trap he can't get himself out of if it's that easy for her? It doesn't make any sense.

Here is my take. What we need are understood villains, people just do things due to personal reason, either reasonable or not. stories letting us know about this reasons should show how it connects and contrasts the hero and why clashing with the hero justifies their action in their head. The sympathetic trope is only annoying because it is all what we see, and it looks so forced.

I like Cruella, I don’t like how she’s portrayed as sympathetic, but I do like what they did with Jasper and Horace, giving them actual layers as characters, tbh THEY deserve their own film

Could you imagine how disappointed Walt Disney would be in the current state of Disney? I just watched a documentary about his history and that dude was so gifted at collaboration, creating amazing creation's, finding the right people for the right things. They were TRULY DIVERSE, genuinely talented like we rarely see. Dedicated and Passionate towards creating imagination bending works of art and they Really did understand all the aspects and processes that mattered. For what it took to create those works of art. *(I just saw that Ukraine just started creating 2d animation for their military videos and it really reminded me of what I saw Walt do during WW2) I love seeing cartoon styled animated video's being used again. Just how Walt Disney did (out of his own pocket) he believed it was the least he could do for his country and his countrymen who were giving so much to the war to protect our nation and the greater good in the world. (If you think about it. Walt Disney did a lot for pushing advancements in science/creativity. He made understandable information that taught so many people of all ages, and from all sorts of different walks of life, to inform on very important matters and subjects of the time. Things that might seem out of place or difficult now, were completely relative to the current situations everyone was dealing with at that point in time. (The passion Walt gained for science and technology is what sparked his passion for Epcot and learning how to build all these cutting edge devices, city planning concepts, animatronics puppets of Abe Lincoln or the talking/signing birds in the tiki lounge. Plus all the other puppets on all the other interactions around his theme park. I just watched a documentary covering the career of Walt Disney and he really was a amazingly uniquely talented person. Where he himself had a insane drive towards innovation and new ideas BUT what I think his best trait was: That Walt was SO GOOD at interacting with everyone around him and he just had this amazing ability to find the PERFECT person for different jobs, things, roles. To really bring out the best in OTHER people around him. I truly believe that's one of the most important traits in a great leader. If anyone is in a group of people who are set on creating anything. (It's rare when someone comes across with the unique style and approach like Walt Disney had and really all it takes is to watch the coverage documentary that covers all of this uniquely awesome stuff that positively impacted SO MANY PEOPLE in so many ways and places. It didn't matter who you were, the chance that something from the Walt Disney era impacting you in a positive way is nearly 100% a possibility. There really was some of the best attributes of humanity, teamwork, and motivated passionate creativity that occured thru this group of Walt Disney era team members and we all could learn something from them. In some way or another.)

The singing killed my grandma reference killed me (9:57)

When I was little, Maleficent was my favourite Disney character, i found her fascinating. I also loved Cruela. I hated their actions, and as any sane person would, i rooted for the good guys. But i was FASCINATED by them because of their power, mad determination and amazing charisma. Disney want us now to feel sorry for them.

I agree with this video, but I have one small issue: Villains can, in fact, be the protagonists of their stories. There are many examples of this. "Hero/Villain" refers to a character's morality, while "protagonist/antagonist" refers to a character's role in the story. For example, in Death Note, the villain Light Yagami plays the role of the protagonist, while the antihero detective L plays the role of the antagonist. Disney just really, really sucks at making villain protagonists. And, lately, at making villains in general.

Ok, writer here. I think that Disney misunderstands reason with sympathy. You can explain and give a reason behind a villains villainy without sympathizing with them or giving them a redemption arc. You can explain how a villain got to where they are without making them an anti-hero or sympathetic. Backstories can make a villain more complex, yes, but they don't HAVE to make a character less evil or over the top or campy. You can add more depth without zapping away everything that makes a villain FUN. Great video by the way. I couldn't agree more. I miss the old villains so much.

I can only hope that Wish’s villain is just evil for evils sake at this point

Tbh I sympathise with the original caption hook, man was actually tortured by Peter. But in the fun good vs evil way.

Lets all agree Dr.Doof is the most sympatheic villain Disney had made

If Disney wants to make a sympathetic villain, they need to go watch Avatar the Last Airbender and look at Azula and Zuko.

The most ironic thing is that pretty much all of the classic disney villains were sympathetic in some way or another - no matter how evil and terrible they were, there was something likable about them. Forcing villains to be sympathetic (modern disney), also making them less of a villain, just only makes them unlikable characters over all

I have been asking this question for most of their movies as of late. What's wrong with real, scary, evil villains? I loved the 1st maleficent, Cruella was ok but they both had nothing on the OG's. I thought seeing the other side of things was interesting, like we all could be considered villains to someone at some point. But I guess my hope was too high for D- because now we're not allowed dislike anyone because of their trauma. Thanks for the video 🧡🤟🏿

Yeah when you do sympathic villians you take away what made original villains evil i didn't like Maleficent movie it takes away what made her threatening begin with same Captain Hook and Cruella. Disney seriously lost their touch with their content.

Sympathetic villains work best when the story and other characters aren't plain, boring, or vastly different by comparison. "Maleficent" made her an antihero by making Stefan a villain and taking away Phillip and the fairies' heroic moments. They could've given her a sad backstory (ie being alienated for her appearence) and showed how judgemental people are. Aurora, having supernatural beauty and singing skills, could likely be seen as eerily supernatural (perhaps becoming a fairy herself due to the fairies' magic), and the fairies work to make sure she doesn't turn out like Maleficent.

The only sympathetic villain I truly love is Anastasia. She was, after all, just an impressionable girl, and in both sequels she grows as a person. It's better in 3 than in 2, because we get to see her actually learning and changing and growing instead of the BS in Cinderella 2 that's just "oh yeah she was a horrible abusive person but she likes someone now so she's a good person." In "a twist in time" she actually doesn't find love, but rather learns the value of love. She has everything handed to her and chooses not to take it because she values the marriage beyond status, and she no longer feels right taking Cinderella's true love when he doesn't even truly love her.

I'm still waiting for the hunter who killed Bambi's mom to be revealed as a poor guy who had to feed his own family somehow and later regretted his actions and will help adult Bambi to escape the fire.

It’s not like it’s a bad idea to make some villains as sympathetic. But the reason they don’t work with the older villains is because their menace and evil is why the stakes of those respective movies work. It’s why they’re real threats. It’s why they get their charisma and why we should fear them or at the very least in the case of Hook, enjoy them. But think about it like this. They have made a woman who murders dogs for a living as someone we should feel sorry for. Or a woman who had beef with the king and queen by punishing a newborn as a tragic ex of said king who did nothing to deserve it in the original. Or in the case of Hook, turn him into a former ally of Peter’s and make Peter look worse in comparison, especially since he cut off his hand. Or in the case of Gaston, he’s a traumatized war victim with PTSD. Because essentially what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter that Gaston stalked Belle and blackmailed her into marrying him by putting her father into an insane asylum on false charges. It wasn’t his fault. He’s just traumatized. I would have been somewhat fine if we just had one villain be sympathetic in a remake. But when you do it over and over, the effect no longer means meaningful but just lazy.

Disney: They keep calling us villains. Lets make all of our movie villains sympathetic. That will show them we aren't bad.

If Disney somehow made a live-action film about Bible, they would have Satan be redeemed just by him saying "I'm sorry lol."

Sympathetic villains CAN work but making a well known mustache twirling villain into a sympathetic character NEVER works. When people watch a movie like the Lion King, they wanna see an evil delightfully sassy Scar. Not whatever tf that was. They wanna see an evil rejoices in evil Maleficent. It's not hard, if there's an iconic villain like Captain Hook, make him just like he was in the most iconic incarnations. Imagine if I was doing a live action version of A Nightmare Before Christmas and I gave Oogie Boogie a sad back story about how he used to he a jazz musician until Jack broke his instrument. Now Oogie plots his revenge. Also Oogie is a person and not a bag of bugs now lol. Imagine if people who didn't really wanna see this made in the first place saw this. They probably just wanted a recreation of a sentient bag of bugs but they get this instead lmaooooo

The sympathetic villain trope has been oversaturated.

It's because they pick the wrong kind of villains to make sympathetic that never deserved it in the first place. If it were up to me, I would have placed Randall Boggs and Dawn Bellwether in the sympathetic list more than the others, they deserve to have their stories told, not what we got

Dracula from Castlevania (the video game not the tepid series) is a sympathetic villian if you know why he became the monster he was. But at the same time he needs to be stopped, to be fought by the Belmonts who have sworn to stop his madness and his son Alucard who does not agree with his reasons why humanity has to die or be enslaved. Dracula is what he is because he choose to be a monster instead of dealing with his loss... and that monster needs to be stopped at all cost.

One thing I really hate about Live-Action Remakes isn't just how the Villains are less evil than their animated counterparts, but how they often have something important taken away from them in the story. - Maleficent doesn't transform into a Dragon. - Jafar doesn't turn into a giant snake. - Scar's iconic "Be Prepared" song is shortened to last around 1 minute. - Even though Cruella has an impressive wardrobe of fasion, she doesn't have a desire for a fur coat, wheather or not it's made out of puppies or any other dead animal. These make the Villains lose their edge and miss the point on why we loved them in the original films. I mean what's next, is Dr. Facilier not going to communicate with shadowy demons even though he's The *SHADOW* Man?

The only good type of sympathetic villains are not ones you feel bad for, but those you feel bad when you think of how things could've been different. To quote one of my favorite quote, "They're pitiable in all the ways they failed to be good"

Disney thinks we want Zuko for our villains without realizing we would like more (OG) Scar.

Maleficent, the movie, was vile. The original animated Maleficent is indeed the queen of Disney villains (so fabulous, so stylish, so vindictive), but then Hollywood, in their desperate effort to subvert all traditional values, had to make her.... a victim of the patriarchy? Pure garbage, but it does reflect the sorry, severely damaged state of mind of the people who run that place.

Honestly, the worst example of Disney making sympathetic villains is the burglars in Home Sweet Home Alone. In the original Home Alone films the burglars were just people trying to break into the house and Kevin was defending himself from them. The fact that they had no sympathetic backstory made it fun to see them get their comeuppance. In the new film, they give the burglars a backstory of being a couple just trying to steal a doll to provide for their family. Now that they have sympathetic backstories it takes out all the fun of watching them go through the traps as you feel bad for them instead of wanting to see them get hurt.

For a sympathetic character to work, their actions need to make sense and they need traits that if not redeemable are at least admirable. Pathos, suffering and overcoming tragedy can help, but if they are unlikable then why should we care about what they went through? Making the heroes into jerks is really annoying and it is not a good way to make a sympathetic villain.

i really hated the whole concept of Cruella's movie. i don't really know what Disney was thinking. when the original 101 Dalmatians animated classic first came out and was popular, i don't think anyone thought "oh hey i want a whole movie on Cruella's backstory and why she wants to skin puppies!!!" there's literally no story to be had. she wants a spotted coat made out of Dalmatian fur, that's it. that's literally it and she went through great lengths to steal a whole bunch of litters to make said coat. in that movie, she even tells Jasper and Horace to "poison them, drown them, bash them in the head, i don't care how you kill the little beasts, just do it!" now remember we're talking about innocent puppies here and she wants them to be brutally killed for a COAT. she even goes as far as to track the puppies down when they escape and chase the truck they're on in the ending which ends with her crashing her car into the ditch. i feel like this was a perfect arc for Cruella and nothing more needed to be explained about her character. i mean, people like Cruella exist all over the world and it's not hard to fathom why she is the way she is. then enters Emma Stone's Cruella. i haven't watched the movie in it's entirety because i legitimately do not care for it, but from what i have seen, it's abominably stupid. Dalmatians didn't deliberately kill her mom, the Baroness did, the dogs were only following her command. sure, Dalmatians could've been a symbol for Cruella, in her mind, for loathing and hatred, so much so that she'd want dog coats made out of them, but that's ridiculous. she even finds out half-way through the movie that the Dalmatians weren't responsible. this movie doesn't even make sense on par with the original's timeline (i'm not sure if this movie is supposed to be a stand-a-lone and NOT tied to the 101 Dalmatians franchise, but if that's the case, WHY DO THEY HAVE CRUELLA, JASPER, HORACE, ANITA, AND ROGER IN ITTTTT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) i feel like this movie could've been perhaps decent if it didnt have original 101 Dalmatians characters, because there's no way in hell that any fan of the animated classic was going to watch this movie and actively root for infamous puppy-napper evil villain Cruella de Vil. it's so stupid. i hate Disney sometimes because this is literally not it.

Big Jack Hoiner got more sympathy from me than Hook, if anything, Hook's backstory made me believe that Peter was the villain all along.

I got so pissed off when I heard about what they did with Cruella because in the original, she never targeted the Dalmatians simply because they were Dalmatians, she simply targeted any animals who she thought had pretty coats of fur. When she is first introduced the fur coat she is wearing isnt a Dalmatian coat, showing that Dalmatians werent her only target. The reason why cruella was such a fun antagonist in the original is because she was simply a pure evil maniac who wanted to kill off animals simply because their coats where pretty, then they changed her entirely by making it all "Dalmatians killed my mom" like bro wtf

I cant wait for the live action little mermaid for Ursula to reveal she's only evil to pay for her kitten heart surgery

It's funny because the majority of villains I like are the complicated/sympathetic/tragic types (whether or not they show it outwardly), just not the Disney ones. They can't even do that right. At the same time I do still miss villains who are evil for the sake of being evil, if they got enough style to make up for it.

I could buy it for Maleficent. Despite her name i don't think it's says why she's evil in the first place despite her appearence. But Cruella? I mean, she want to skin alive 100 dalmatian puppies for a fur coat and enjoy the idea. You simply can't make a vilain like that sympathic.

I really like the first maleficent, the second one was boring. I tried watching cruella but it was sooo boring that i ended up just turning it off like i think halfway, maybe less, so I don't really know what happened in cruella.

What are your thoughts on Alma as an antagonist? I think she worked pretty well, even not being EVIL. Variety is the spice of life. Disney can have villains of many types. I think we're tired of twist ones and sympathetic cuz we'd got ONLY them a lot of times in a row. If Disney made villains of various types, we wouldn't be that mad at the sympathetic and twist ones. But there's, of course, another problem: the bad writing. If the four twist villains in a row were all well written, again, we would not be that mad. That's why I want to know what do you think of Abuela Alma, the best sympathetic antagonist of recent Disney.

If anyone wants a good live action remake of Peter Pan: the 2003 ‘Peter pan’ movie by universal is really really good. Made with a lot of love and care and some of the themes that were in this analysis that they said were missing from the Disney one.

Kinda feels like Disney is going to cause two very terrible ideas to become the norm for kids: 1. People only do evil because the were mistreated or because they have no choice. 2. I can still do evil as long as I think I've been wronged enough by others to justify it.

Next up: Why Frollo wasn't actaully that bad and we should give him a redemption arc.

You know, I was thinking about this whole "Make truly evil villains sympathetic" thing myself, and while watching this, it hit me that there _MIGHT_ be a way that that _could_ work. I'll use Cruella as an example, and let's say for the sake of argument, I'm the creator of my own version of the movie _Cruella_ : We start with a younger Cruella, who is a little girl with a serious mean streak, and genuinely enjoys bullying people and has a strong dislike of animals, but a near paradoxical obsession with how soft their fur is. She loves fur, to the point of obsession, both for the prestige and glamor, and the softness. All throughout her young life, we get scenes of this odd and even unsettling mix of unpleasantness towards people and animals, and obsession with fur and using all the money and power her family has to her own ends. We have a few scenes of her bullying her "schoolmate" a young Anita, and then a few kids get sick of it and finally stand up to her. Cruella tries to play the victim to the teacher, but it doesn't work and she gets yelled at and told that she'll never be loved or be anything of worth if she acts like this. She runs off crying, unable to deal with her first real "wall" against her bullying and selfish behavior. To her surprise though, a boy or girl comes up to her, and asks if she's okay. At first, she thinks to tell them off, but the words about her actions stick with her, and she _thanks them_ instead, and then asks them why they bothered, since she's so mean. The boy/girl tells them that they always thought she was pretty, but scary, but today they heard them crying and wanted to see if she was okay. Touched, at least a little, young Cruella decides to ask if they want to spend time together, and the new friend says yes, and promises they'll help her be a better and happier person. Cruella and this new person become closer throughout school and after graduation, with Cruella becoming kinder towards that person, but struggling with everyone and everything else, despite the other person trying to help them by taking them out to places and teaching them to try and be nice to other people, pet animals without wanting to tear off their fur, and so on. Cruella is genuinely happy, though she still struggles with her desire to shine, to be "above dull normal life" and other such arrogant things that the original Cruella reveled in. Things take a turn for the worse though, when she starts having an "idol" to look up to, let's just call her the Baroness for simplicity's sake, a pinnacle of all the things Cruella's nasty side _wants_ to be, rich, influential, decked out in beautiful outfits (though not furs), and without a kind word to say to anyone, feared and "respected" by all, as well as hated. The movie rolls on, with Cruella's special person noticing the change in Cruella as she starts pushing on to becoming a worse and more powerful person, putting her families money towards buying furs and styling herself up for fancy parties that have not a single bit of warmth or true happiness in them, and they are caught between being glad she's happy and wanting to stop her, and attempts to get her to enjoy _both_ things and maybe tone down the awful stuff fail, and Cruella starts ignoring and pushing them away, even yelling at them, and steadily becomes more the loud, haughty, and nasty Cruella of the original movie. This all comes to a head when a big party happens, and the Baroness _herself_ is there, to Cruella's delight and amazement, and the Baroness takes an interest in her, wanting to "invest in her future" and asking her to move to a much more influential city that has a _marvelous_ fur store right next to the Baroness' own major company building. Cruella _almost_ says yes on the spot, but then thinks of her special person, and goes home to tell them they're moving. The person is shocked and confused, and saddened when Cruella explains, and when it comes down to it, they tell her "I can't go with you, all my other friends are here, and I wouldn't belong in that sort of place..." they get into a fight, and Cruella storms out, while her person tells her that "Do what makes you happy Cruella, I won't stop you..." with tears in their eyes. We end on Cruella sending letters to her special person, telling them all about everything, and how happy she is, and thanking them for "inspiring her to follow my dreams", while clearly being cold and heartless towards everyone. The special person reads them, and at first tries to smile, then breaks down in tears, saying that they failed Cruella. We then cut to Cruella, enjoying herself at a party and wrapped in a new fur, but looking to her side and noticing the absence of her special person, and looking a bit less happy...but forcing that away when someone gets her attention. My point with this idea of _Cruella_ would be to sell the idea of "Evil can be pitiable, for all the good it misses out on" so to speak, where Cruella, and other villains had a chance at _being_ better people, and having love or something else great and kind, but threw it away to chase their evil dreams, but still have a bit of pain at what they tossed aside. It isn't perfect, and I'm not saying it is an idea that Disney would _have_ to make or anything, but if they _had_ to make villains like Cruella, Maleficent, and so on be sympathetic, THIS would be a better way to do it that would be truer to their characters than what they _actually_ did, which was pretty much in my eyes make entirely different characters that do the same things, but make them excusable because the other characters are now assholes or incompetent buffoons so the "villains" do everything instead.

i used to say "does it have a clear antagonist, a villain? Yes? Thats Disney." because in 9 out of 10 times an animated movie with a clear villain used to be by Disney. It kinda does not work anymore haha

Because a lot of bad writers don’t understand or care about morality in day-to-day life. That’s why we get bad morals, rushed redemptions of characters that committed atrocities, and bizarrely disconnected motivations that anyone even slightly well adjusted would laugh at. It’s not so much sympathy as the writers wanting kids to relate to the villains so that they’ll be worse people for it, like themselves

Disney cannot even manage to create a new well written sympathetic villain, let alone update a classic character and make it work in the story. Captain Hook could be redeemed and become an anti hero but modern Disney isn't capable of doing it right, there was barely any build up towards that moment, there was no logic involved in the process, "Captain Hook as anti hero" storyline (making him a neutral character with understandable motivation) should have been the main focus in the story throughout the whole films runtime instead of girl power nonsense. Therefore, the film about Peter Pan should have been a grim prequel (before he met Wendy) that explains how Peter uses children to stay young (similar to how the Pinocchio animation presented the child kidnapping) and how he affected Hooks state of mind but it requires taking risks and being creative, as well as having a clear focus in the story. But Cruella should have never been shown as a hero, she was always a spoiled maniac that hated dogs because she was obsessed with real fur coats, people like Cruella actually exist in real life in USA, China and Russia and no one feels sympathy towards them because they are egocentric monsters

Nowadays villains are heros because everyone is warped.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I genuinely enjoyed how Cruella and Maleficent did their own creative thing instead of the same old boring 1-to-1 remake of the superior animated film. I never got the impression that these were the "same" villains from the animated universe at all, but completely different characters sharing only the same names. These movies exist in a vacuum *to tell their own stories* which I vastly prefer in comparison to lazily telling the same story, only worse - case in point Lion King 2019. Besides, both Maleficent films featured some pretty violent and unredeemable "classic Disney villain" antagonists. The Baroness from Cruella was also a complete psychopath, so I disagree that these movies took the safe route at all.

"Cruella" is a good movie if you just ignore the original movie and consider it an alternate universe.

When your character name has words malice or CRUEL DEVIL in it you should know that character has no good in it.

Not the Singing Killed My Grandma reference😂

The only Disney villain that could actually work as a sympathetic villain is Hades, he got swallowed by his own Dad, got screwed over by his brothers, everyone thinks he is evil because he rules the underworld even though his brothers are ones banging everything that move and caused 99% of the disasters.

While I agree that making Maleficent sympathetic doesn’t make much sense, you can’t deny that Angelina Jolie totally nailed that performance.

There is such a thing as a Villain Protagonist, being a Protagonist doesn't automatically make someone a hero or antihero. After all, even bad guys are the hero of their own story. Disney just completely changed these characters from villains as a choice. It was POSSIBLE to make a Cruela movie with her as the Protagonist but still clearly the same evil character from 101 Dalmations, Disney just chose to nerf their villains instead.

Imagine making Maleficent, the mistress of evil, the devil incarnate, the one who enjoys making people's lives miserable just because she can and has the power to, into the good guy. i mean, if we're going to go that far, why not make Chernabog, the literal devil himself into a hero with a sad backstory while we're at it?

But sympathetic villains do work examples like magento , Loki , Mystique as well as namor and venom

I get the grey area issue. I can also get the sympathetic villain. Many monsters in real life are created in fact. However, there are monsters in our world that are just monsters. They make the world a shitty place and there is no redemption for them. Trying to make every villain sympathetic is foolish.

I think the last real villain was Belos from The Owl House. Belos was ideologically evil and manipulative while being unrepentant up until the end.

Both 'Maleficent' and 'Cruella' were, I feel, ALMOST good, albeit highly alternate, takes on their respective villains, but they both had moments where they took the wrong path - or rather, they SHOULD have, but didn't, which ruined them as villains. The thing about really in-depth villain backstories, when you get them, is that no one starts out a villain. There's often a moment where the protagonist has a choice: do the right or the wrong thing. They choose 'wrong', and that's what makes them a villain. In the case of the 'Maleficent' film, there's a point where the title character finally just full-on decides to not even pretend to be a villain anymore, and continue on down a heroic path - if, instead, she had veered back towards her quest for revenge, sacrificing her newfound motherly love for the Princess and fully embracing her role as the Mistress of All Evil, that would have made her story a tragedy, which would have added the depth to her character that the film was theoretically teasing - she would have been evil, because she'd knowingly sacrificed her capacity for good, therefore ultimately dooming herself to defeat by it. That would have been compelling and interesting - but it's not what we got. Or in 'Cruella', there's the same thing - a moment where the title character ALMOST fully becomes her villainous original version, but punks out at the last second. This is the point where she shows up in full Dalmatian-spotted regalia, and the Baroness says, in shock 'she made a dress out of my dogs!' If the film had ended there - right THERE - we would have wound up with a Cruella truly worthy of her fiendish predecessor. She's achieved her revenge, she's sunk her rival's career beyond all hope of resurrection, and in the process, she's sacrificed the love and respect of her foster-brothers, her own sense of common decency, and possibly even her sanity. She's changed from the nice young lady she was earlier into a full-on monster, and she doesn't even care. THAT would have been a believable backstory for classic Cruella - instead, the remaining half-hour devotes itself to completely reversing all of that, and going 'no no no, she was a hero all along, you see, and she didn't ACTUALLY make a dress out of dogs - why, that'd be NASTY'. Now, I actually liked both movies, but they were NOT what they were being billed as. They were being billed as 'the never-before seen backstories of Disney's GREATEST VILLAINS, OMG', while they should have been billed as alternate, heroic takes. I can buy the Maleficent from 'Maleficent' and the Cruella from 'Cruella' as A Maleficent and A Cruella, but they are not and never will be THE Maleficent and Cruella, because they do not have the balls to commit to their premises. You can't tell a genuine villain story if you refuse to let your villains become villains.