Even the woman who said "Still I think he's rather tasty" while attempting to carry Aladdin into her house was a better villain than what we have now.

The worst part is there are examples of villains like this who are done right. Silco from Arcane was able to be empathized with, Nox from Wakfu was trying to undo a mistake from a long time ago. The problem isn’t that Disney is doing new things, it’s that it’s doing them wrong.

I guess the reason why King Candy worked as a twist villain is because in the movie, he was disguised as a Sugar Rush character, but he was actually Turbo, a well known game jumper who acted like a virus that took over games, and was foreshadowed to us by other characters. ("You're not goin' Turbo are you?") When it's revealed that King Candy is actually Turbo, it made us connect the dots to why he was so anti-Vanellope throughout the whole movie. The other twist villains that came after him are super nice to the main characters throughout their movies until the end when they're revealed to be the villains. The movies hardly give us any dots to connect and when they're revealed to be villains, we're like, "What? Where did this come from? I liked them before now!" Which is another reason why it would've been so satisfying to see Namaari be defeated in "Raya and the Last Dragon". She was a jerk the whole time, but when she suddenly becomes a good guy and tries to help the main cast in the end without even an apology for her actions, we're just supposed to accept the idea that she's a good guy now? No way! I wanted to see her fall off a cliff.

Disney villains now: - No villain. It's about personal issues and conflicts between the characters. This is fine but lately, Disney has been hammering its viewers over their heads with morals and the execution is just terrible. ( Raya and trust, Ralph Breaks the Internet and clinginess, Lightyear and working as a team) Also, you can have all those character-developing moments and have a villain that drives the point home and is a three-dimensional character too. (Puss in Boots the Last Wish) - ''Twist'' villain! Most of the time you can guess who the villain might be pretty quickly. When they are finally revealed there is not enough time for them to be bad or have any bearing on the plot. And their evilness just goes from 0 to 100. Professor Callahan calmly stands next to the guy he blames for the death of his daughter and then goes out of his way to kill his students and bystanders and doesn't even consider the possibility of saving his daughter. He's supposed to be a genius? It's like they write the villain and the character completely separately. - ''Redeemable'' villain. Namarii is the worst. She acts like a villain for a whole movie and then she ''turns good'' (she was just trying to save herself and her people) and her personality does a 180. From a stone-cold fighter to an awkward friend. You can not skip the redemption part of the villain redemption story!

I'm kind of tired of King Candy being called a twist villain, because he's not. He's a villain with a twist, the fact he is the antagonist is not kept a secret and his role in the narrative doesn't change when its revealled that he is turbo.

For Callaghan, I think he could’ve worked really well. Say Cray started the fire at the lab to get the tech there for himself. Have Callaghan rescue the Microbots as he did in the movie already. Keep Tadashi’s death as it was. Now he’s lost his daughter, Tadashi, and his research. Continue the movie from that point. He’s not a twist villain that way, he’s a twist anti-hero willing to do anything to get revenge and save his daughter. Most of the movie could work the same from there as well.

I was told 'Hans was a good twist villain because of the hints he dropped in his song with Anna' but the person didn't attempt to argue the point of Hans smiling sweetly after first meeting Anna when no one was around to witness the act. It was just to throw the audience off. He shouldn't have been a twist villain but rather just not a match for Anna.

Hans had everything going for him, he was strong, handsome, everyone trusted him, Anna would have more than likely married him and Elsa was hardly an obstacle for him, and almost everything he did up till the end would have been completely understandable and not evil. All he has to do was go with the flow and EVERYTHING would have been alright for him.

King Candy is still one of the best Disney twist villains. The reveal explained his obsession with winning and the drive to be in control, and his grudge again Vanellope, rather than diminishing his character.

Disney should take notes from DreamWorks' villains. Best examples of their villains; Puss in Boots 2 and the Kung Fu Panda films

Although I enjoyed the most recent films from Walt Disney Animation Studios I notice since _Wreck-It Ralph_ and *ESPECIALLY* _Frozen_ onwards that Disney Animation hasn’t been utilizing Traditional Villains in their most recent films for 13 years with Dr. Facilier and Mother Gothel being their most recent traditional villains they utilized and for the past 10 years, Walt Disney Animation Studios has literally been just using either Twist Villains and/or a Generational Trauma as the antagonist for their latest movies and when I rewatched _Aladdin_ 3 months ago on Disney+ I begin to miss the actual Disney villains that Walt Disney Animation Studios previously utilized. In fact, it’s worth noting that Walt Disney Animation Studios seems to follow the Pixar model ever since Disney acquired the studio back in 2006, by having most of their recent animated movies just put more focus on having the protagonists/heroes being more "relatable" due to their interpersonal problems similar to how Pixar does it with their own protagonists in most of their movies, and because of this it results in Disney Animation moving away from the traditional villains that were previously utilized from the Golden/Silver Ages and Renaissance era for "Twist Villains” or a generational trauma from a “force of nature" or the protagonists own insecurities as the antagonist. If anything, the reason Walt Disney Animation Studios and to a degree Pixar’s are hesitant and unwilling on having actual villains in their current animated movies is because from their especially Walt Disney Animation Studios’ POV they think villains are "obsolete and aren’t important to audiences" and lack black and white morality compared to their protagonists who they want to put more development on. However, you then have the likes of other rival animation studios from DreamWorks Animation, Illumination, Sony Pictures Animation, Warner Animation Group and even Guillermo Del Toro’s _Pinocchio_ on Netflix that still utilized traditional villains that are complex and understandable in their movies and audiences still care and resonated with these villains, but to Disney Animation they just don’t want to "move forward” and continue being Inflexible on utilizing villains in their latest movies. It’s also the same argument why Walt Disney Animation Studios hasn’t done any animated films based on adapted works (fairy tales, books, novels) anymore like _Rumplestiltskin, Hansel and Gretel, Jack and the Beanstalk, Puss in Boots, The Nightingale, Blue Beard, Swan Lake, The Girl Who Drank the Moon, The Brave Adventures of Lapitch_ etc. and just do original films with Fairy Tale/Fantasy motifs instead because to Disney they think that the themes and messages from fairy tales "wouldn’t resonate well to modern audiences" in today’s society hence why they haven’t done any animated films based on adapted works following _Tangled_ (based on Rapunzel), _Frozen_ (inspired by The Snow Queen), and _Big Hero 6_ (based on the Big Hero 6 Marvel comic books). I'm hopeful and optimistic, that with _Wish_ which is rumored to have a traditional villain (but keeping expectations low) I hope that for future Disney animated films from Walt Disney Animation Studios will start bringing back the classic Disney villain trope that was utilized from the Renaissance era and in their earlier Disney animated films since Snow White. Speaking of Pixar, I think when Pixar handles their Twist villains such as Stinky Pete, Mr. Waternoose, Charles Muntz, Lotso, and Ernesto de La Cruz compared to Disney Animation’s own Twist Villains released after King Candy (Hans, Callaghan, Bellwether) who are kind but soon revealed their kindness is just a facade, the Pixar Twist villains act warm, friendly and hospitable to the protagonists but then they start showing their true colors and a different side to them when something they want or their reputation feels threatened and take matters on their own hands such as Stinky Pete on wanting to have himself be preserved in a Museum in Japan instead of joining Woody, Jessie and Bullseye to become Andy’s toys and when Ernesto de La Cruz prevents Miguel from returning to the living world with Héctor’s photo.

Ya Know, Callaghan COULD'VE work as a villain if given a proper context his distate for the word "HERO". Example, he lost her daughter because she was convinced by discount Musk that doing such dangerous trip would help humanity in the mid, long term, making her a hero. thus mudding the term for him. Again, with Tadashi's death instead of the infamous "That was his mistake!" it could've easely be something like "He didn't need to play the hero! This world doesn't need heroes!" further solidifying Hiro's drive to actually be a hero himself alongside Baymax, thus proving Callaghan worng. Would've def need more proper foreshadowing, but the idea itself is right there

I find the worst part about most of Disney's twist villains, especially with characters like Hans, Bellweather and Callaghan, is that the twist itself is the most if not _only_ interesting thing about them. At first they're just generic supporting characters that don't leave any impact, and then when the twist happens they're just reduced to unmemorable, one-dimensional bad guys with evil plots that were apparently in motion the whole time. The brief shock factor of when the twist actually happens is the only thing that leaves any impact on the viewer, and even that wore off after about the third time when audiences had become trained to _expect_ a twist villain. It doesn't help that when the reveal happens, the friendly fronts these characters put on for most of the film before that point are revealed to be a complete lie that didn't represent at all what they're actually like. So for most of the film we've been following a character that doesn't even exist, and we don't know anything about the "real" version of them because they've only just shown up. So rather than the twist giving them more layers and development, it essentially just splits the villain into _two_ completely different yet equally poorly developed characters.

Anyone else noticed how awful the message of "trust" in Raya and the Last Dragon is. They absolutely failed on how trust works. Trust is earned, not given but Sisu kept on pushing that you just have to trust anybody regardless of their reputation, past actions or credibility.

Most of these twist villains could have been really good with a few changes like Callaghan for example. Have him mention his daughter a little more at the start, maybe something along the lines of “she was the same age as tadashi” now there’s a hint something happened to her. Have him ask hero about the microbots a little more before accepting him into the school, hero mentions there fire proof and now he knows they can protect him in the fire. And lastly change the line “that was his mistake” this felt incredibly out of character so I’d change the conversation slightly and have him say “then you’ll understand why I’m doing this”. Hero would be confused at this point but it would make sense once he learnt what happened. Baymax can still try to kill Callaghan there just needs to be a couple tweaks so it still makes sense. The thing that makes twist villains work is hints that you’ll spot on you second viewing and keeping the characters acting the same unless there was previous hints to say otherwise.

This is how I think Frozen should have played Hans. When Anna gets back to the castle and tells Hans that true loves kiss will break the curse, Hans agrees to try. But the kiss should fail only because Anna has fallen for Kristoff because she got to know him more than Hans. Hans realizes this and helps Anna get to Kristoff. The main villain should have been the Duke because let's be honest, he looked like the villain since the beginning😂. So he tries to kill Elsa, but of course Anna saves her. The curse is broken and the Duke is thrown in jail. Hans and Anna remain as friends, while she gets with Kristoff. At least this makes sense to me🙄

Hans could have worked not as a villain but as an unwilling victim if they had used the Original problem that catapulted the story of origin in the first place: The Demon Mirror. In the original tale, that mirror shattered into a million pieces and scattered into the winds. Anyone who was unlucky to have one of them fall into their eye will see the worst version of those around them and act hostile. They could have made it into a villain and be the one who influenced the events of the movie. The royal's sudden isolation, Elsa's fear, and Han's terrible about face. They could have used that to make Hans struggling until he broke when Anna needed him the most. I may not be the best storyteller but this would have been a better fix than the crap they cobbled together once they decided Elsa was no longer a villain.

If you're going to have a sympathetic villain, use that as a reason, not an excuse for their actions. If done right, it can make the villain more chilling. Or it can remind the viewer the importance of a moral base. It should never be used as the first and last step of a redemption. If you want to redeem the villain, fine, it can work. Exhibit A: Prince Zuko, Exhibit B: David Xanatos. Don't rob the audience of the story while telling your story. Or you get another Hans.

The thing about Twist villains is they CAN work, but some were done poorly some just didn't need it.

The problem with Disney's twist villains now is that none of them have distinct personalities anymore. They're generic and forgettable. Also, Disney doesn't takes risks anymore by letting them commit truly atrocious deeds, such as killing off a beloved character or humiliating the main hero like Scar and Frollo respectively. Many recent Dreamworks villains shine in comparison, like Tai Lung, Lord Shen, Drago Bludvist, Captain DuBois, Grimmel the Grisly, and of course, Jack Horner and Death. We don't need complex villains, just one who are straight-up evil and relentless.

I love King Candy because it's not JUST a twist villain, if anything, he is a Villain with a Twist. It's got a setup, with Turbo always being mentioned, how he went into other games. Wreck it Ralph's whole character arc is about not wanting to turn out like him, not only that, but the fact he mysteriously disappears, and when it is revealed it's like "Of course! He's a racer too!" Not only do all of the previous details build to this, but the explanation and visuals I'd say also work great, King Candy/Turbo is INTEGRAL to the story, and it would not work without him, Vennelope also would not exist because of him, THAT'S what makes him work. King Candy even before the reveal was a Villain, the reveal was just the Cherry on the themed race course Cake.

I think Hans being a villain is one of the worst plot twists in recent movie history.

Tamatoa is by far the best recent villain after King Candy. There’s no twist in our beloved shiny Coconut Crab.

Wreck it Ralph had so much conflict: 1. Ralph trying to win a medal but was told bad guys don't win medals 2. Fix it Felix trying to get Ralph to come back to his game before it goes out of order. 3. Calhoun trying to destroy all cybugs before they destroy every game in the arcade. 4. Vanellope wanting to race in Sugar Rush but was told glitches can't race 5. King Candy/Turbo trying to stay the most popular video game character

I personally think the last true Disney villain we had was Gothel from Tangled.

The problem with Prince Hans is that, by scraping the concept of Elsa being the villain in favor of Anna and Elsa being sisters, Frozen's story doesn't need a villain to begin with. Villains like Scar and Hades work because they are the reason the plots in their respective movies exist to begin with. Frozen's plot has almost nothing to do with some creepy guy who wants to take over the kingdom of Arendelle, despite the movie's attempts to convince you otherwise, (such as Anna being naive, Anna's act of true love, etc.). If Hans was written out of the movie and Elsa found out a way to unthaw Anna's Frozen heart herself, nothing would have changed. The only way a villain other than Elsa can work is if the villain has a compelling reason for wanting to hurt Anna, giving Elsa an actual incentive to learn to control her powers, which is so she can protect her sister. Other than that, there really isn't a need for Frozen to have a villain if Elsa isn't going be the villain of the movie.

Disney actually HAS been making real Disney villains, just not with their movies. The Disney animated T.V. shows like Gravity Falls, Amphibia, and The Owl House each have fantastic villains that definitely lean more towards the classic archetypes rather than the modern "twist" approach. I don't want to spoil anything, but to those who want a good Disney villain, I highly recommend giving the animated shows a try.

The Lightyear twist doesn't even make sense. Cause if I recall correctly, the line Zurg said to Buzz on the elevator in Toy Story 2 was not: "No, Buzz, I am actually you from the future sent back in time to save you from yourself."

King Candy/Turbo and Ernesto de la Cruz are the only good Disney villains we’ve gotten in the past decade. TWO villains among a whole decade of animation.

There's really no problem with a twist or sympathetic villain on its own, it's just that, like with the more "Pure Evil" villains that we know and love, how they're written is paramount. I remember one of my favorite RPGs in the past had the heroes desperately working to help the church only to find out that the church is evil and its ultimate leader is a legendary ancient hero who wants to resurrect his sister at the cost of countless lives before creating his own heartless utopia. By the end you feel a great deal of sympathy for him, as he lost everything fighting for people who hated him simply because of his mixed race heritage, but even though you sympathize and even understand why his ideal world would look heavenly to him, this doesn't remotely reduce his fearsomeness, or make his ideal any less hellish for everyone else. In the end, he's a satisfyingly threatening villain while also being a real surprise and yet sympathetic enough to be honored in the end by naming the Tree of Life that heals the world after him.

Sometimes you just want to watch a monster get what they have coming to them.

Twist villains are not inherently bad. They play into Alfred Hitchcock's idea of suspense. They are the bomb, and we're held in suspense waiting to see the aftermath of it exploding. The problem is Disney doesn't know how to do twist villains. Disney thinks a twist villain should be a surprise to the audience when it should only be a surprise to the characters.

I mean to be fair Bellwhether perfectly fits the theme of Zootopia: subverting the expectations we have about animal stereotypes. Judy is a cute small bunny who wants to be taken seriously with the police like the rhinos and elephants. Nick is a fox who struggles with preconcieved notions of foxes as sly and sleazy. And other characters have this too: Clauhauser is a cheetah who is lean and fast and a predator of gazelles yet he is round and tubby and is a fan of a gazelle superstar. Flash is a sloth who is slow, but actually is a fan of street racing. So it perfectly fits the idea, while it could be executed better, of the main villain being, of all things, a little sheep who is stereotyped as a meek and gentle creature.

Something I’ve come to realize is that many of the greatest villains serve as dark foils to the hero. The Joker, Darth Vader, all of Disney’s greatest villains…they all serve as dark mirrors to the hero, being effectively what the hero could become if they don’t overcome their demons. Of course, “modern” heroes don’t have any demons, so if they come up against a villain, they’ll be weak and unmemorable.

I think we can also agree that Mother Gothel, from Tangled, is one of the best Disney CG villains, if not THE best. She’s manipulative from the start and doesn’t show remorse for her actions. Which is classic Disney villain.

What really kills me about _Raya and the Last Dragon_ is that all they needed to do to make it an amazing story is have Namaari be the main character, embarking on a quest to summon Sisu, obtain the other shards, and assemble the pieces to restore the gem. Though initially being motivated by the same selfishness that her mother (and by extension the Fang tribe), she’d come to learn throughout the quest what people are capable of when they trust eachother, and at the end, she would ultimately choose to trust Raya to be the one to heal the gem - in _spite_ of her mother’s selfishness and manipulation.

Thing is, Prince Hans was a good leader. He stayed behind to actually clean up the mess Elsa (and Anna) left behind. He opened up the palace to provide people with food. He was shown distributing supplies like wood and cloaks. He asked Elsa to please stop the winter and end her people's suffering. I get that he's the villain but wouldnt it be better if he were unfit to lead? Because now it looked like Arendele would have been in good hands with Hans

Might be weird to reference Dreamworks here, but I think Megamind summed it up. One thing Modern Disney villains are lacking is "Presentation!" Look at the classics (especially animated). Ursula, Jafar, Scar, etc. These characters have presence. They are evil, but they are also spectacular while being that. Just looking at Scar. He cruelly betrays Mufasa and even more cruelly makes Simba feel like it is his fault. Then after crushing his spirit...he sends the hyenas after him to kill him. Utterly unnecessary. If he wanted Simba dead he could have done it himself and didn't have to mess with his head. But he wanted to be utterly despicable.

The old Disney villains were actually fun, serious, menacing, scary, murderous, cunning, manipulative, powerful & intimidating. They were also evil from start to finish. New villains pretend to be good but when the movie escalates they reveal their true colors

Wasn't Emperor Zurg supposed to be Buzz's father? I know it was just a Star Wars reference but, they even played ball with each other.

With the new Mario Movie, it Even shows that even Illumination is doing better than Modern Disney I really hope Illumination gets a redemption age

This is one of the many reasons why I'm terrified for the upcoming "Wish." They're seemingly hyping up that this movie is gonna have a legitimate villain voiced by Chris Pine, described as "one of the most formidable foes." And considering that this movie is essentially designed to act as a tribute for Disney's animated libary, for their 100th anniversary, they need a more traditional villain, because whether they wanna believe it or not, their villains are easily among their most iconic elements.

Can you talk about Disney's female leads and heroines and how they've evolved over the years? How they changed for the better and the worst?

The one that probably annoys me the most is Zurg in Lightyear since they just retconned Toy Story canon with it. Even if it was just a Star Wars parody joke, Zurg telling Buzz he’s Buzz’s father in Toy Story 2 was still said by a toy who thought he was the real Evil Emperor Zurg with the purpose of “Destroy Buzz Lightyear” so even if it was a joke it’s still official because of that but instead of just sticking with what they did Disney just decided “pull the rug out from under the audience for like the millionth freaking time” by only referencing that in Lightyear when Buzz for a second thinks Zurg is his dad before they show it’s an alternate future Buzz and I’m just like “Are you kidding me? You don’t just mess with the continuity of arguably the most beloved animated movie franchise of all time for the sake of shock value that you’ve done for like every single freaking movie ever since Wreck-It-Ralph when it really only worked well in that movie”. I mean the best explanation with all of that I can think of is that since the director of Lightyear confirmed that in-universe the Buzz Lightyear movies are a trilogy that the real Zurg came into play in either the second or third and got his tech back to fight Buzz and his team but the fact that I have to assume that happened in movies we’re likely never going to see feels like it just says why Disney just seriously needs to stop with twist villains and go back and do more stuff like Maleficent, Scar, Jafar, and Hades or even take notes from Puss in Boots:The Last Wish since they had actual sympathetic and enjoyable antagonists with Goldi and the Bears, a very fun but still irredeemable one with Jack Horner, and one of the most intimidating and well used animated movie villains I’ve ever seen with Death where the first two (well, I guess five) basically guarantee a fun time when they show up and the latter is actually scary since using the creepy shots and the whistling that had freaked Puss out in their first encounter can make the audience go “Oh crap, get out of there Puss!” especially after Death mopped the floor with Puss in the first go-round, so when Puss survives him it feels so triumphant and it fits with what Puss is going through throughout the movie. Seriously Disney, take notes, that is how you do it, not constantly going with “They’ve been evil the whole time!”, or “They’re actually not a bad person”, I and I’m sure at least several others wanna see more like Jack or especially Death where it’s like “You do not wanna mess with this person at all or they will kill you”

King candy in wreck it ralph was a solid villian, it was a clever and unexpected twist to the movie

The only one I liked was King Candy, maybe it's because this trend was still just beggining so he still felt fresh but now there's an oversaturation in the market.

Callaghan as a villain worked for me, until they brought back his daughter. He was a man filled with hidden bitterness and rage, but impotent from lack of opportunity. Once he saw Hiro's bots, he began seeking revenge. Even his dismissal of Todashi's death can be seen as furthering his moral decline. However, safely bringing back his daughter undermined his character development. The better options would for them to never find her, for them to find her dead, or for Callaghan's quest for vengeance to kill her. This would have better contrasted him with Hiro, who overcame his hate to do the right thing.

What bothers me the most about Han's schemes is that if he was resolved to kill Elsa and take over Arendale, he had plenty of chances to do so without exposing in such a stupid way what he had been planning by telling it to Ana at the end of the movie. That has to be the dumbest revelation of a villain in movie history by far.

Princess Namaari is an antagonist, not a villain. Unpopular opinion, but I really love and sympathize with her. If there was ever a true victim in Raya and the Last Dragon, it would be princess Namaari. She was raised to be a warrior and her mother didn't seem to be very warm or loving towards her. I don't doubt that chieftess Virana genuinely loved her daughter, but she used and manipulated her for personal gain. Raya was raised with warmth and kindness, Namaari was raised with coldness and brutality to become a warrior. It was pretty obvious that Virana, as much as she loved Namaari, raised her as a subject and a warrior firstly, but as a daughter secondly.

They really need to take notes from Puss In Boots The Last Wish, that movie had like 3 antagonists and all of them were so great and memorable. Dreamworks is really crushing Disney right now in terms of quality of their animations and storytelling.

Let’s see all these current villains go up against Goldilocks and the 3 bears, Jack Horner and the baker’s dozen, and Death.

I feel like Eveyln Deavor Could have worked as a villain if she was all in on rebuilding Heroes with her Brother where they were open and honest even with each other, working together and constructing a villain which helped get the Heroes back in the Limelight, and things just got out of hand when Elastigirl kept looking into the case. With Helen choosing to do the right thing by bringing the siblings to justice, even though they were her most vocal proponents for bringing Heroes back. This would have forced Evelyn into fully embrace becoming the 'villain' showing how devoted she is to the bit, with her brother stoking the media and altering the narrative so that no matter what, Heroes would have to come back. obviously a lot would have to be changed to alter this new direction, but I think it has potential

A hero is only as good as the villain he faces.

King Candy/Turbo really did work though. For one, he positioned himself as an antagonistic force early on, so he got time to be the bad guy. Second, even when he played nice, we all kinda knew something was up. For three, Turbo was already set up as a legend and cautionary tale long before the reveal, so it felt like it was paying off instead of just being out of nowhere. Fourth, on rewatch, we can see hints (King Candy has a design that's pretty different and distinct from the other racers, his head is a different shape and so are his legs/feet and whole body really. He's not based on any particular candy, and his castle being pink fits Vanellope's dress really well so you can kinda see that he didn't belong. There were always hints he didn't belong. Oh, and can't forget, racing games.

This whole trope became kind of a trend, just like battle royal in games. It is nice to have if content is build around that concept, but you can't just take any game, shove it in, and expect it to be great. Atlantis is a really great example, basically everything in this movie since the beginning resolves heavily around money, Milo not being able to get it for the expedition, the guys talking about how they do it for money to make their dreams come true, but in the end they realize there is something more important. There is a red line. Give me some forshadowing, make me believe these characters way of thinking. Also take your Hans and "I seriously already forgot his name again Prof" from big hero 6 and put them in a dumpster.

Making hans a villians was a horrible choice. Like why would he save Elsa if he wanted the throne? One less obstacle in his way if she was dead. And he genuinely seemed to care about Anna through out the film. The film theorists did a video about him not being the true villain. I recommend y'all check it out

I would argue king candy is there only good twist villain. Just because we actually see him do evil things through the film, he is seen diving into the games code where code has been ripped out, we learn about turbo and how he lead to a game being unplugged by going rouge, and the only real twist is that king candy was turbo, but with what we've seen, it makes perfect sense.

Frozen was actually good and I'll die on that hill, but Hans's villain reveal was so baffling, I actually ended up looking into rules of monarchy succession. His plan wouldn't have worked at all. Ever. Elsa effectively abdicated her throne, putting Anna in charge. If Anna were to die (or otherwise be unable to rule), Hans wouldn't take over as he could never be king. His marriage to Anna would make him Royal Consort and any power he would have would be inextricably linked to Anna's. With Elsa in the mountains and Anna presumably dead, rulership would transfer back to the stewardship (or whoever ruled Arendelle before Elsa came of age) until a suitable heir could be found. Hans would never be King of Arendelle. Even in a crisis situation, he would only maintain power if Anna did as well.

You can tell older villains were more memorable when I remember Maleficent even though I've legitimately never actually seen the movie she first appeared in.

how did you not mention scar once, hes one of the most memorable villians

I'm pretty late to this great video, unfortunately! But in my opinion, the best villain in all of Disney is not a twist villain or a straightforward classy, eloquent, I-love-being-evil kind of villain. It's Silver from Treasure Planet. He manages to be both incredibly sympathetic in his friendly moments and completely formidable and scary in his evil moments. He has no noble motivations like Namaari and no tragic backstory to "justify" his actions like Callaghan. But like Hades, he's just such a charmer, and like Maleficent, he absolutely loves what he's doing (and never stops loving it). The thing that makes him unique and fascinating is his love for one person - which doesn't even redeem him from his actions. It just adds a hundred extra dimensions to his character, and I think makes him Disney's only true morally grey villain.

I genuinely feel like the odd one out where I feel like the twist villain in big hero 6 made perfect sense to me and I enjoyed it. it's one of the very few twist villains where when he was revealed I thought it was neat, and when his motives were explained, I had the reaction of "Yeah I get it" while most other twist villains I question where the motives came from and find the motives lacking in the first place. In frozen there is clear evidence to show that Hans was a genuinely good person and he did many things that actively go against his twist at the ending, which is why the change feels unnatural. In Zootopia the sheep's motives were... lacking to say the least. They showed her as tired and overworked, but there wasn't any evidence to support her twist. With big hero 6, there is no hinted at evidence either to support the twist, but I feel it works as a lot can be implied, while with the sheep, there isn't much that can be left to the imagination. Perhaps the only reason I don't mind the big hero 6 twist is because I personally enjoy filling in the blanks and that movie allowed me to do so while the other two movies do not. There is no way to fill in blanks with Hans since all evidence contradicts his twist, and with the sheep, there's no room to really add anything as she isn't really relevant at all. When it comes to Callaghan, Everything could easily be tied together to reach his end goal, he was a teacher at a college where students were building technology, he was there looking for something he could use to further his plans as any of his own likely fell short. He was kind and nurturing to his students, something he was by nature and came easily to him, and despite his pain, he was able to hold up a façade of sanity so no one would suspect ulterior motives. He didn't want Alastair to get ahold of Hiro's invention as he needed it for himself and couldn't risk his enemy from ruining his plans, this action is seen by others as being protective of his students when they're the least of his worries at this time. He didn't account for Tadashi trying to save him because he was too focused on his goals to realize his impact on his students and never considered that one of them would run into a blazing building to save him. He needed to fake his death to fall off the radar and work on his plan and Tadashi was unintentional collateral damage. to me, Callaghan is shown as desperate, vengeful, but impulsive, not full thinking through the consequences of his actions or taking into consideration those around him. The moment he saw a chance to further his plan, he took it without any regard to his students. Is it perfect? no, but do I find him a shitty twist villain? Not at all. I think all they needed to do was just show a tiny bit more of him, hint at something going on underneath the surface.

The reason king candy worked was because he was already a villian. He was already the bad guy but then presented reasoning behind it. Onl for it to be revealed that he lied and was lying the whole time. He was there the whole film he wasn’t a random person who became a villian

In the words of Mission Impossible 2: “for every Chimera there’s a Bellerophon ”, villains are good as long as heroes are

I think the biggest issue thats plaguing disney is lack of awareness, and what I mean is these writers are not aware of what they themselves are writing. I don't know how thats possible but here we are, for example Callaghan the writers clearly wanted to make him sympathetic man that is out for revenge for his daughter, but he showed 0 zero compassion for Hero about literally being a direct cause of his brother's death and even has the audacity to say 'it was his mistake' (just to be clear its ok for a villian to be a hypocrite but it is an issue when a we are supposed to feel sorry for said villain) and then even though his daughter is supposedly his whole motivation for doing what he is doing he chose to go after revenge and hurting many people over even checking that his daughter is alive or not. And this type of stuff is everywhere shit just look at Velma the show clearly wants us to hate Fred but he is the best character in the entire show and the writers clearly didn't understand what they have done.

Am I the only one who liked Professor Callaghan?? He was good in big hero 6 😭 Plus King Candy is iconic all these other “twist villians” want to be him so bad

Another reason we remember the old villains is because we are with them throughout the movie, just like we are with the heroes. We learn who they are just as much as Belle, Ariel, Hercules, and Simba. We get to watch the villains express their strong personalities, exude their powerful presences in their scenes, and have compelling or entertaining interactions with other characters. We get to see the great animation that comes out of those scenes that help to make them all the more memorable (like twisted smiles, shadows, crazy eyes, etc). Plus the villain songs that help to establish the villain even further, like with Gaston or Scar. The twist villain can't have any of that because for at least half to 2/3 of the movie, they are acting like someone else. And most of the time, their personality is muted and rarely grabs for any attention from the other characters. The writers are deliberately pushing them to the background to make the badguy reveal more of an unexpected twist. However, that is what ultimately kills the whole character and kills any chance of having a strong villain. They get no moments to have a powerful scene, no build-up, nothing. At the very end we are suddenly introduced to a brand new character that has zero time to establish themselves before they are defeated. Plus we are seeing everything as things happen when it comes to the old villains. We are seeing the plotting, the evil looks, the evil deeds. Just like any movie should be doing. It's showing, not telling. But the twist villain always ends up being a "teller" at the end, in that EVERYTHING about their motivations and plans get dumped all at once in a bunch of dialogue, occasionally throwing in some flashback scenes. But none of that is interesting or memorable to watch. If Lion King was new and being written nowadays, it would be written with Scar acting super nice through most of the movie and acting genuinely concerned and helpful toward Simba. Even helping him escape the Pride Lands to avoid punishment for "killing" Mufasa. So you don't see any of the plotting by Scar, his interactions with the hyenas, his murdering of Mufasa. Nothing. All for that to just come out of left field when Simba is told by Nala that Scar took over and things are terrible, so he should return. Simba then shows back up and then gets a big ol' info-dump from Scar detailing his whole plot and every bad thing he did. That would have really ruined the narrative and Scar would have been just as unmemorable of a villain as that Frozen prince character whose name I keep forgetting despite having just heard it in this video. Scar would have been trying to catch Simba and the audience up and we wouldn't have that great scene where the two are just fighting in the original and then all we get and all we need is for Scar, who is feeling victorious, to smugly whisper to Simba "I killed Mufasa". Since we already saw it, we don't need anything else and it lets the scene play out. Modern Disney would rewrite that scene for the twist villain where Scar explains everything about what happened with the wildebeest, the hyenas, and throwing Mufasa off the ravine into the stampede, probably with brief flashes to those things happening as a visual. All of that breaking up the emotional and impactful moment as Simba just sits there and listens until he finishes.

I hate the twist villains because they try so hard to trick the audience and some people think there great because they're "realistic". Realism does not automatically good, it's all in the execution.

Callaghan didn't have to be a twist to the audience. Imagine the recorded video played as the first scene of the movie so we knew his backstory, then we saw him take a clear interest in the nanobots. He's not evil right now, but then Hiro picks Krei to pioneer nanobots with him. There's then a scene of him having a mental breakdown over losing his only chance to get his daughter back, which sends him over the edge and he sneaks off and sets the building ablaze, with the nanobot shield being shown as everything explodes as opposed to later. The audience is fully aware that it is him, but it's still left to the characters to figure it out, and he's far easier to hate since his choice was contrasted with Tadashi selflessly trying to save him and dying for it. There would be a few tweaks that need to happen later, but it would've been much smoother.

Also, I find it needlessly strange and tone deaf when Disney does things in their remakes to remove or alter a scene involving a pre-established villain to “update it for modern sensibilities” such as removing Jafar’s desire to make Jasmine fall in love with him and her kissing him to stall for time. Like, yeah, an older adult male subjecting a teenage girl into enslavement to become his bride is creepy… IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE!! Jafar is supposed to be an irredeemable bastard, and you SHOULD feel disgusted by his greedy and problematic actions, THAT’S THE POINT!

Whoever came up with the idea of Callahan being the villain: “That was his mistake!”

I now really want to see somebody go through all of the terrible twist villains, what the company did wrong with them, and then not only applied suggestions as to how they could be fixed, but provide little animated segments with the changes applied. A good example could be an animated segment where they use the reveal scene in Big Hero 6, and then change Callaghan’s dialogue so that when Hiro reveals that Tadashi went in the building to save him, but dying in the process, Callaghan immediately switches from angry to remorseful, feeling for Hiro’s loss, and even be understanding if Hiro wanted to see him gone, but that to see his mission complete, he can’t let Hiro stop him

It’s just the stories themselves, when you have a fairytale type story and villain is all laid out. But when Disney attempts to create a new story, they have to create a villain and they’re not doing that at all.

The horned king, frollo and Jafar are my fav Disney villains. They're just pure evil, but also good characters. And im so happy that someone finally mentions the horned king and frollo

The real villain of Big Hero 6 is the girl who told Tadashi that their professor was still in the burning building

Tadashi's death has got to be one of the stupidest animated deaths ever and I like the character.

Based on the concept art Callaghan wasn't supposed to be a villain from the start but they changed it. I think that's one of the reasons why he didn't work well either cause he wasn't supposed to. Rewriting was poorly executed.

Kind Candy was a twist villain done right. He clearly has good reasons for stopping Venelope from racing, and doesn’t wave from that. The reveal of his true identity near the end worked so well because it connected with a small detail/mystery which was revealed since the start of the film (your going Turbo), it was a twist which connected to the small details in the story and everything that happened since the start. Recent twist villains don’t have that same feel or even presence throughout the tales. They’re in the background through the whole tale and revealed at the end, when they weren’t even in the story in the first place.

It’s a delusional talk but I really really hope Disney wake up and put actual good villains in their movies instead of using trauma as the villain. Encanto did a great job for that, but still a good solid and physical villain is 2x better. They are flashy, charismatic, smart or comedically dumb, and also evil. Puss in Boots: Last Wish had 3 villains: a chaotic neutral, a redeemable one, and a pure evil dude. These 3 appeared in the same goddamn movie and the result is phenomenal, it’s a miracle that it did not end up making the movie a huge clusterfck. Disney writers should fcking take notes from their ancestors and from Dreamworks.

King Candy does actually work, because there’s enough clues for you to figure out he’s the villain, they don’t make him sympathetic as he seems to just be the king who would naturally care for his kingdom, making his manipulations more subtle, and his motivations actually make sense. The reveal that he’s turbo actually cements his character motivations, and though it is a twist reveal, the villain of the story actually never changes. The issue is they’re trying to take a formula that has worked for a lot of their more successful franchises and apply them to all their movies where they’re not needed and the twist doesn’t feel natural, the emotional depth unearned. Sometimes a villain is just a villain and you love them because of their villiany. Meanwhile you got studios like Dreamworks blowing it out the park with their villains with fierce consistency for the past 20 years

I saw Frozen I on the big screen with my class when we were about 10 years old. The moment Hans revealed himself as a villain, my friend said out loud that the whole room heard it: "I knew that would happen!" 10 years old, guys...

8:04, to be fair, Pixar has always had that issue. Toy Story 2(1999), Plot Twist villain. Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins (2000), Plot Twist Villain. Monsters Inc.(2001), Plot Twist Villain. Wall-E (2008) Plot Twist Villain. Up (2009), Plot Twist Villain. Toy Story 3(2010) Plot Twist Villain. Cars 2(2012) Plot Twist Villain. Coco (2016), Plot Twist Villain. Incredibles 2(2018) Plot Twist Villain. Lightyear (2022), Plot Twist Villain.

@Aldone There are actually 2 twist villains that appeared in Disney Animated movies released in the early 2000s that actually blow the current twist villains that suck out of the water due to subtle hints sprinkled throughout their respected films: Clayton from Tarzan with the evidence in his fascination with gorillas, his desire to find them, his pretending to be a bodyguard for the Porters, and his impatience with Tarzan, and Colonel Rourke from Atlantis: The Lost Empire with the evidence in some of the dialogue from his meeting with Milo Thatch onward.

Recent movies care more about the protagonists and a moral message than antagonists. Renaissance and orig Disney were often based off darker stories, and while most of the story and protagonists were watered down and the villains weren't.

The last great villain was Mother Gothel 💜💚

Y'know, there are some twist villains like Callahan, that I don't think we were supposed to see as "twist" villains. We all saw Callahan coming. Others like Hans or Bellwether were different because, I'm sorry, they were more realistic (except for that one scene with Hans when he makes a goo-goo face at Anna after she leaves). There are lots of people out there who will pretend to be on your side and pretend to care about you to get what they want. I was glad that Disney started that conversation for a lot of kids, yes, there are people like Frollo and Ursula who couldn't be more obviously evil if they tried, but there are just as many Hans and Bellwethers out there. Namari is shit, but so is that whole movie and message, so IDC.

The funny thing about Lightyear, is that it has been done before, an evil Buzz Lightyear from an alternate dimension, this was the premise an episode of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, "The Lightyear Factor", where emperor Zurg finds a portal to a parallel universe, and encounters an evil Lightyear, seeing it as an opportunity to get rid the good Buzz, Zurg tricks him and traps Buzz into the alternate universe. This was done in 2000, it was interesting and fun, and did not try to take this so seriously, Lightyear did not need to be a soap opera, dripping in melodrama, it could have been a fun adventure sci-fi, with the over-the-top emperor Zurg, seeking out a new planet to conquer, and hamming it up while monologuing his plan to Buzz, the film should have tried being an episode of BLoSC.

They're awful, either they're the lazy, nihilistic anti-heroes, have a lame twist too them for plot convenience or they're just generic and forgettable 5 minutes after you've seen them It's like Disney doesn't believe that some people are just evil and can't be helped

Say what you want about Zurg, but at least he WAS a villain. Most Disney movies now just don't have one.

Humanity = failures.:/ Also, Frozen 2, Toy Story 4, and Ralph Breaks the Internet = toxic shit with it’s “endings”.

I’ve seen someone say that like, “after Hans reveals he is a villain this means that everything he did before wasn’t happiness but it was like I wanna murder her so I can be king”. But I really think don’t think he was faking, I really think he was a character that got mangled with problematic movie development. It’s not his character to be evil, the writers just ruined him.

Had a similar situation with the two main villains from Freedom Planet and its sequel. Brevon was an intergalactic warlord who curb stomped the series version of a Federation. He shows absolutely no sympathy for the lives he has ruined. Starts a war between three nations just to get a magic relic to power his ship, tortures the lead for information, followed by more torture after he gets it and genuinely causes nothing but suffering to anyone who stood in his way. Merga was an example of a tragic villain but she loses points on that since you can still feel the presence of the original that left a scar on the world. Doesn't cause nearly the same level of damage and without directly spoiling anything, a certain event occurs that completely destroys the villain from her tragic.

I think the overgrown Disney adults aware apart of the probelm too cuz now they wnat “sympathetic villans” aka they wnat someone just as bad as they are as people but give excuses to excuse their bad behavior instead of calling them out on their bad behavior and facing repercussions 😂

King candy, Ernesto de la Cruz and Mother gothal are the only good modern villains…. It’s sad that there’s only 3 compared to the many before the 2010’s

Disney villains are just not scary enough

Two other ways that Hans' actions don't line up with his motivations: 1) He tells everyone that Anna is dead without ensuring that she actually is, ensuring that if anyone went to pay their respects to the princess or if they heard her yelling for help, they'd see she was still alive. 2) He tells everyone that he and Anna said their marriage vows. However, if they had, their vows would not be valid because there was no priest to officiate them.

Modern Disney Villains have really messed me up. As a kid I used to pride myself at being able to predict the twist villain and plot and then I watched Big Hero 6, Frozen, and Zootopia. These 3 movies have really made me mad because you never could've predicted the twist. I literally studied creative writing and private investigation because I wanted to never be tricked like that again.

For me it’s what I saw another commentary KZfaqr say. “Villains need to be as evil as their heroes are good.” If the heroes are sort of good, or only “good” because they’re the main character, the villains usually are lacking motivation and power too. They started losing when they kept pushing the “sympathetic villain” character instead of making a villain evil to tell a story. And you CAN make an interesting, ‘sympathetic’ villain, but they’ve lost that ability.

I wonder what the lasting cultural impact of this over abundance of twist villains could be.

Nah, the twist villain prototype was in Meet the Robinsons. The "villain" wasn't the guy with a typical mustache-twirling villain appearance, the "villain" was the bowler hat sidekick that was originally made by the protagonists future self (wherein we circle back to Buzz Lightyear).