• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

One area where Pixar is deficient compared to classic Disney.

CaptainCanada

CaptainCanada

Admiral
Admiral
I was thinking on the Standard Disney/Pixar film comparisons, and in general I think the classic works from each studio match up very well in terms of quality. Trying to think of areas where one was better than the other, I could name a few areas where Pixar was superior (these days, there's a little more plot variety) - then one came to mind where I think Disney is clearly superior (well, music, but Pixar's films aren't musicals, so that's not really a fair comparison): villains.

Pixar's got ten films out now, and while the villains in the films served their roles fine (and were generally well-written), they mostly don't stand out all that much. The notable exception might be Syndrome, but that was a superhero movie.

Compare that with the real Disney A-list: Maleficient, Cruella De Vil, Ursula, Jafar, Scar, Frollo, even somebody like Dr. Facilier who's a bit lower down the pole. Those are some real cultural icons of villainy.

Agree/Disagree?
 
Hmm never really thought about that before, you're right. I mean Cruella DeVille ranks up there with Darth Vader and Hannibal Lector. Yeah... really, the only real villain was Syndrome and that was a superhero flick and he pretty much died at the end.

Up had that crazy aviator/adventurer, but he wasn't really a villain just... crazy. Cars had SORTA villain in Chick Hicks... but he was a loud mouth arsehole more than a villain. Toy Story 1 had Sid... but that didn't really put him in the pantheon of evil, nor was toy collector guy from Toy Story 2. Finding Nemo didn't really have any to speak of, save for the Sharks and they turned into good guys "Fish are Friends... not Food!". There was no real villain save for that HAL-alike but that was more or less due to man's laziness...

Toy Story 1 - Sid
Toy Story 2 - no one really
Finding Nemo - no one really
Cars - No one really
Incredibles - Syndrome
Up - Crazy Aviator/Adventure guy
Monsters Inc. - that chameleon like monster and the CEO of Monsters Inc... forgot their names
Wall-E - Man's laziness and the HAL-Wannabe...
What was the other one??
 
Pixar films seem to have antagonists, rather than villains, if that distinction makes sense. Or perhaps they're characters that are obstacles. Because they're not particularly "evil", they're just opposed to the protagonists.
 
Hard to say.

So many kids' movies these days try to downplay the villain. It seems 'man vs. man' is out and 'man vs. society' is in. (At least for kids' movies, anyway.) Real conflict comes from within these days, not from a villain. (Hell, it's been over 30 years since George Lucas proclaimed that classic good-vs-bad stories were a classic throwback. Both Star Wars and Raiders presented that kind of plot as an anachronism. This has been a long time coming.)

I'm mainly talking about kids' films, remember. And that's not 100% true, of course. I can think of exceptions. But even in those exceptions, they're leaning away from the villain being the villain. Look at 'How to Train Your Dragon.' Big-ass scary leader-dragon in it, right? Yeah, but he's not the real plot driver. That's still a 'man vs. society' story at its heart. I'd say the same thing for that Jack Black panda movie. (Well, that one's probably 'Man vs. Destiny.')

So what I'm getting at is that even though you're right, I don't know if it's so much a 'Disney vs. Pixar' issue but more of a '20th century vs. a 21st century' issue.

EDIT: Did anyone here see that Frog Princess movie? I didn't. Where does it stack up? Was that witch doctor villain a real villain or more of a side thing?
 
A Bug's Life had that grasshopper voiced by Kevin Spacey, but you're right, Pixar seems to be more interested in telling stories about a protagonist overcoming nature and life's difficulties rather than a personified villain. It's more complex and, dare I say, modern, but it'd be fun to see Pixar go for a memorable bad guy.
 
Small White Car said:
EDIT: Did anyone here see that Frog Princess movie? I didn't. Where does it stack up? Was that witch doctor villain a real villain or more of a side thing?
Click to expand...
I liked it. It follows the "Little Mermaid" story template for the most part (it's got the same directors, even), but it's very "classic", which is doubtless what they were going for. Facilier was a good villain (and he was the main villain), and (once again) he had the best song.
 
I liked The Princess and the Frog as well; good story, good animation, and none of the cast were famous enough that hearing their voices took me out of the film (John Goodman is no stranger to Disney, and it didn't occur to me until halfway through that the voice of Tiana's mother was Oprah Winfrey). The only part that I felt was a letdown was in the songs — they weren't terribly memorable, and "Friends on the Other Side" (Dr. Facilier's song) seemed like it was directly channeling "Poor Unfortunate Souls."

All in all, though, I found myself agreeing with whatever film critic they quoted on the DVD cover — this probably was Disney's best non-Pixar movie since The Lion King.
 
The lack of focus on villains is actually something that I like about Pixar, (as well as Miyazaki films like Spirited Away in which the more-or-less-evil Ubaba was eventually circumvented but not punished). As I've gotten older, I've grown less and less interested in wanting to hate a character. Yes, truly evil psychopathic people do exist, but most people have at least some redeeming qualities.
 
Pixar's stuff is good and a step away from what Disney usually produces, which to me is step in the right direction. They still have a long hike to go though to catch up to my preferred type of serious sophisticated animated programing.
 
Last edited:
cardinal biggles said:
All in all, though, I found myself agreeing with whatever film critic they quoted on the DVD cover — this probably was Disney's best non-Pixar movie since The Lion King.
Click to expand...

Would you include Mulan in that estimation? It's easily my favorite of all Disney movies, but tends to be overlooked.


One aspect of recent Pixar films that I've found frustrating is the sudden change of tone which they've tended to undertake at the end of the movie; sedate, amusing, thoughtful movies transition into silly action set pieces. The movies seem to turn to slapstick strife in lieu of a third act.
 
Anton Ego was a fantastic villain; miles better than most if not all of the Disney antagonists I grew up on. Surprised he hasn't been mentioned yet... though with him and Syndrome, would it be true to say memorable villains are something one sees in the Brad Bird Pixar films?
 
Could Pixar's generally less-fantastic approach to storytelling be why their films have less memorable villains? With the exceptions of their earliest movies, Pixar's animated features have generally exhibited drama and commentary more than romantic storytelling. (More unpleasantly to me, Pixar movies since The Incredibles have been characterized by a sense of loss and neglected opportunity that I identify with aging and with generations (the boomers especially) older than mine.)

Romantic tales - like the classic Disney movies - deal more in archetypes and allegory, and are thus better suited to producing memorable characters (hero and villain alike) easily related to an extensive variety of lives and experiences. Dramatic films, and movies which offer more direct commentary, are more specific to themselves, and are as such inevitably less broadly relevant.
 
Kegg said:
Anton Ego was a fantastic villain; miles better than most if not all of the Disney antagonists I grew up on. Surprised he hasn't been mentioned yet... though with him and Syndrome, would it be true to say memorable villains are something one sees in the Brad Bird Pixar films?
Click to expand...
Ego was a very interesting character, but he wasn't much of a villain; he was only in a couple of scenes, never did anything bad, and became an ally at the end.
 
CaptainCanada said:
Ego was a very interesting character, but he wasn't much of a villain; he was only in a couple of scenes, never did anything bad, and became an ally at the end.
Click to expand...
Time and the ultimate role of the villain aren't important (Shylock famously appears in only a handful of scenes in The Merchant of Venice), what's key is the impression. He is a complicated villain who is to be won over rather than defeated, but even that is an excellent twist in the context of the film.
 
My point was that none of Pixar's villains have become cultural icons in the way that Disney's have, and that holds true for Ego as well. They don't have that outsized joie de evil.
 
Then we'd have to ask what a cultural icon is. I don't recall any of the villains mentioned here except Cruella de Vil and Ursula reaching that sort of status (Frollo's been sort of forgotten, for example).

It's a hard thing to quantify or determine so it's really best just to go with who you think work better as villains, and I have.
 
I'd say that for the most part you are correct. Mainly Pixar plays down villainy compared to classic Disney, therefore, making it no real competition. I would say one notable exception is the crafty way that "Up" developed Charles Muntz into a villainous persona from what started as a heroic icon

Is Muntz as iconic a villain as those of classic Disney? Probably not, but then again the film is not as much a cultural landmark either, unfortunately. I absolutely love that movie
 
Kegg said:
Then we'd have to ask what a cultural icon is. I don't recall any of the villains mentioned here except Cruella de Vil and Ursula reaching that sort of status (Frollo's been sort of forgotten, for example)..
Click to expand...

The definition given by Wikipedia seems accurate:
A cultural icon can be a symbol, a logo, picture, name, face, person, building or other image that is readily recognized, and generally represents an object or concept with great cultural significance to a wide cultural group.​
By that definition, I think we could include the following animated Disney villains among a list of cultural icons:

  • Queen Grimhilde
  • Maleficient
  • Cruella de Vil
  • Captain Hook
  • Jafar
  • Ursula
  • Gaston
  • Emperor Zurg
Formerly, Shere Khan, Kaa, and Monstro would probably have counted among the iconic Disney villains, but their movies have faded somewhat from the public consciousness. Frollo and Hades may or may not be iconic; it's hard to say; their movies fared poorly, but they appear to be relatively widely recognized (Frollo seems to have enjoyed a Youtube afterlife due to Hellfire).

Interestingly, the iconic Disney villains are those merchandised most easily and widely. There's probably a connection.
 
Egon wasnt the villain of Ratattoullie, Skinner was.
I thought Hopper was a great villain in Bug's Life, Kevin Spacey was awesome in that movie!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top