Fr. Every other TS villain faced life changing consequences for their actions. Gabi just gets rewarded for psychologically manipulating Woody to agree to give up his voice box.
I absolutely love the fan theory that Syndrome was such a hero fanatic that he went to Edna to make his costume, but she knew he killed her friends, so she gave him a cape, knowing that it would kill him someday. (Also, my favorite thing about Muntz is how he became so paranoid and mad that he eventually assumed anyone he met in the rainforest was really just there to find the bird and steal his credit, disbelieving their perfectly reasonable and true reasons for being out there, and so he killed them. Took me a while to catch onto that one)
I really do like Charles Muntz. He's basically what Carl would have become. If you think about it, he never let go of finding the bird, he sacrificed having a normal life just to find this bird. Similar to how Carl struggled in letting go of Ellie and her passing. I love it when villains are basically just alternate versions of the protagonist
Other than Syndrome, Pixar villains never really made much of an impact on me. Sure characters like Hopper, Randall, Waternoose, Stinky Pete, and Lotso were solid antagonists that filled their roles well, but they were clearly a couple steps down from the Disney Renaissance villains like Scar, Frollo, Jafar, Ursula, and Ratigan or the Dreamworks villains like Rameses, Tai Lung, Lord Shen, and the Fairy Godmother. Pixar always tends to play their antagonists pretty straight, but they also don't go full-throttle by making them truly frightening to face.
I actually think hopper is an amazing villain. Sure, he may not have some super clever plan or tragic backstory, but he’s just pure menacing and I think that’s all he needed to be. As a kid he and the other grasshoppers scared the shit out of me; any time he enters the scene you can just instantly feel the weight of his presence and that alone is actually pretty impressive to pull off with a character like that.
I definitely agree, especially because of Death in Puss in Boots the last wish. Disney and Pixar haven't given us any animated villains that really scare you.
Stinkey Pete is such an underrated character. He's honestly brilliantly written. He's basically the Toy that no one wanted. Waiting years on a shelf. He's worth nothing but in perfect condition. This changes when he meets Jessie and Bullseye. He now has a chance to be admired and be worth something for the rest of his life in Tokyo. Then Woody comes into the picture but decides that he doesn't want to be apart of the set. All of Pete's years of waiting will be for nothing without Woody. His years of preserving his condition will all pay off if he can just get Woody to come with. He stops at nothing to achieve his goal. The toys eventually defeat him and cause him experience his worst nightmare. To Cap it all off, he is sent away to be with an artistic little girl, who will ruin his perfect condition forever, completely stripping him of any worth he has. It's brilliant. He receives what he never had, just not in the way that we wanted.
I agree, Hopper was an antagonist in every sense of the word (he was evil, but hey he had to assure the survival of his species) -Lotso is a VILLAIN with a tragic backstory done right since even if his past was sad he was still a rotten person who blew up every single chance at redemption he was offered, something that.. -Syndrome didn't had, imo he is the only one of Pixar/Disney tragic villains who legit could have been a hero had he not been threated really badly by his own hero
0:10 This was uncalled for. Chick hicks was a placeholder for a villain, meant to give the kids something to look to as “the bad guy”. The real conflict was with lightning himself, and his turn from selfish and cold to thinking of others before himself.
i think its important to note the distinction between 'villain' and 'antagonist'. havent seen cars but if chick hicks is meant to be seen as 'the bad guy' that MAKES him a villain - the antagonist would be mcqueen, as hes getting in the way of his own goal (being a better person)
Imagine if in Up, Frederickson's old hero Muntz was actually dead. All of the dogs (maybe they don't even have the talking collars) were still being loyal to him and his memory by trying to find and capture the bird. They are stuck on that aspect of their love for their old master. His bones sit in the captain's seat of the airship and the dogs are trying to fulfill his final mission. The parallel is that as they are trying to honor their beloved master by chasing down a bird, while Frederickson is trying to honor his beloved wife by taking a house to a waterfall. Instead of learning the emotional lesson and then just defeating a villain, Frederickson learns and shares that lesson with the dogs, helping them move on. I've always thought that would make the film so much better.
I think you missed the point: Carl and Charles are meant to be reflections of each other. They’re not so different because they both hold on to the past. Carl learns to finally let go of the past and live the rest of his life. Muntz however doesn’t let go of the past and dies trying to reclaim his reputation he lost all those years ago rather than just moving on and accepting it
@@silashurd3597 that's a good point. But in this other scenario both Carl and the dogs are fixating on what they think was important for their lost loved one, failing to miss a bigger message. Either way, Up is still one of my favorite Pixar films.
When you think about it, Pixar's Syndrome from The Incredibles and Dreamworks' Titan from Megamind are very similar characters. Both of them are motivated by selfish and petty entitlement and spite. They're not exactly the same, but it's still easy to draw parallels between the two. In particular, both of them are fully willing to deliberately cause harm if it means they can swoop in and "save the day" and be praised by others for doing so, and both throw a tantrum when this doesn't work, as though anyone and everyone else but themselves is to blame for it.
Right?? It’s not that bad of a movie; I feel like if it was labeled as a spinoff rather than “cars 2” then it wouldn’t be so hated because it has barely anything to do with the original. Criminally underrated imo
As averagely okay as A Bug's Life is in my opinion, I think it's still worth seeing because of two elements. 1. The circus bugs which are really funny and have great voice actors like Denis Leary, David Hyde Pierce, Brad Garrett, Madeline Kahn, etc. and the circus bugs also having a hilarious circus owner as well. 2. Hopper. Say whatever you want about Kevin Spacey but for me he really does a fantastic job and is honestly one of my favorite performances from him. The character is also legit interesting as well having a great backstory, a design that is a little bit more detailed than I remembered as a kid, is legit intimidating and has great monologues to pair it up too. (Edit: All of those reasons alone make Hopper my favorite not just Pixar, but Disney villain in general) Yeah A Bug's Life has it's problems such as having a predictable story and a main character that is just basically forgettable and not that memorable. But these two elements I do think keep the movie afloat and I think is worth just an hour and a half.
I know that not many people liked the movie Luca as much as I did but Ercole was a villain that embodies the male alternative to the mean girl. And also just authoritarianism in general.
@@mardenborough. There are people out there who hate on newer Pixar and say it had no plot. Which is not true because Luca had a deep plot about growing up and accepting others. Also sorry for the late reply btw.
Really, when you really think about syndrome, the only reason he is a villian is because he's killing humans out of spite due to his childhood hero. Removing the crap ton of messed up ideals and murder, developing tech that would allow people the mimic the power of heros, thus allowing anyone who could afford it to easily defend themselves against, or even seek and fight threats to the public, not the worst idea. If Mr. Incredible hadn't accidentally enabled syndrome to kill supers, then he honestly isn't the worst guy. Although this would devalue supers a bit, supers would still have unique biological traits they could use to fight crime (like, you can't reproduce invisibility or stretchy bodies without magic. Even for the abilities that could be reproduced like flying, biological could still be better than the mimic, like not worrying about flight patterns.)
Hot take, but I actually think screenslaver is a pretty solid villain. I think the main reason she gets so much backlash is because the “plot twist” is so embarrassingly predictable. But if you take out the twist aspect and look at her plan, motivations, and the threat she imposes on the heroes, I think she’s pretty cool. Also the screenslaver mask is one of the dopest and scariest looking designs of any Pixar villain
Not really, superheroes were literally already illegal so her doing everything possible to help superheroes become legal again THEN trying to enact her master plan is just incredibly stupid. From the getgo she could've just tried to convince her brother that legalizing superheroes would be too difficult to achieve or that it wouldn't be worth it or she could've set up some kind of plan that would secretly be doomed to fail before ever getting them anywhere.
The concept for the Screenslaver would have been great...if it was in a better movie. The overall writing of that movie is predictable and unfocused, leaving plot holes that make her motivations seem ridiculous. Superheroes were made illegal for no good reason after the original had implied that they were accepted after the incident with the city destroying robot. Pixar's villains tend to exist to push against the main character's ideals. Screenslaver really doesn't do that, partially becasue the other characters are written so poorly compared to the original. Their conflicts aren't clear, so the villain has nothing to bounce off of. Her motivation is also pretty silly too becasue of that plot hole. People being dependant on superheroes too much? The backstory is silly becasue her father made a stupid decision that really isn't the fault of superheroes at all and makes her motivation seem hollow. It's a shame too. The other superheroes were pretty awful imo except for the Portal Girl, who I think could have been a good character if given the screen time.
It’s not that she thought legalizing superheroes wasn’t worth it. She was sick of people leaving their lives in the hands of superheroes and relying on them for everything, which is why her father died. She helped Winston build up the reputation of superheroes so that all eyes were on them, just so at the last second she would turn them all evil and the public would realize they can’t always trust them. Her entire motivation is that she wants people to think for themselves, hence her screenslaver persona and the idea that people spend too much time listening to media and watching other people do stuff rather than doing it themselves. I think it’s pretty clever.
@Troy Williams the story doesn't really support that interesting villain motivation tho. You find out so late what the intention is. But also she manufactured scenarios where superheroes would be extremely important. In those cases, if a superhero wasn't present, many more people would have died. The evidence shown throughout the movie just doesn't support her ideas. Nothing justifies her feelings. Her father dying was a silly motivation to me becasue he should have gone to the saferoom and waited. Better yet, put the hero phone in the saferoom and call from there. It felt manufactured. Why not have a hero fail to save her father, or heck, even have the hero be the robber to begin with. Like I said, give us more examples of superheroes being bad for society in the way she thinks. Show the media propagandizing heroes to make them seem worth investing in. Becasue the movie set up a society that hates heroes, Screenslaver's plan to destroy hereos doesn't seem necessary. We can root for the protagonists becasue we know they are in the right, but still wonder if maybe she had a point.
@@troywilliams2901 as you said yourself the public wasn't actively focusing on superheroes that much to begin with, meaning if Evelyn simply didn't create the screenslaver or setup any other opportunities for Helen to showcase great hero moments to the public, it would've been very easy to not get enough support to lead to new legislation. While I concede the idea behind the screenslaver is rather interesting as it ties into her motivation, her plan is ultimately too complex and prone to potential failure when there would be so many simpler methods someone as smart as herself could've used to keep superheroes illegal.
Disney villains (and heroes) recently including ones made by Pixar feel more like politically motivated lectures than they do real people. They feel like they exist more for the sake of political activist social commentary rather than just being for entertainment and storytelling. Dreamworks is on the other side of the coin, still having not forgotten how to tell genuinely good and interesting stories with fleshed out and interesting characters who perfectly fit their roles. If Disney and Pixar can't compete again like they used to and not take sales for granted, the customers are going to simply go to where the product they're looking for is being delivered instead.
I love that complaint, and it's not totally played out at all. Because, you know, Disney really needed a couple thousand queer-coded Dark=Evil villains, right?
The villain of ratatouille is remi, skinner is just doing his job. But remi is stealing. Endangering his own clan and biting rats have over 20+ Desires that we don’t want all around the kitchen
Jason Todd was never a mass-murderer and only killed criminals (I’ve read Under the Red Hood). Though I do agree that Syndrome is the best Pixar villain in terms of screen presence and sheer evilness
Nope, it goes way deeper than that and I'm amazed at how many people defend him. He's literally a disturbed child, no one in their right mind sets toys on fire and blows them up, etc.
Argument could also be made that he’s just looking for an outlet for a less than perfect home life, as I have a theory that his dad has alcohol problems (when Buzz sees the commercial of himself, it looks like Sid’s dad is passed out drunk). Not much else to support this, but it’s a theory I entertain
I've been watching your videos and you're doing a really good job being objective and critical. Now here's an idea. How about you talking about the criticism of The Little Mermaid since the hatred and criticism has gotten worse over the years with people complaining about: 1. Prince Eric is too perfect and bland 2. The romance is underdeveloped and bland 3. The story is a bland and cliche princess story about a girl who wants a boy and waits for a boy to save her 4. The 3rd act is rushed (and focused more on action than on Ariel's character development). 5. This movie has a bad message to teach kids to be a spoiled brat and they can get what they want 6. Ariel is a badly written protagonist because: -Ariel wants a man (making her 1 dimensional) -Ariel doesn't change or learn her lesson in the end -Ariel doesn't redeem herself in the end by saving the day (or doing anything to fix the mess she made) but relies on others save her and fix the problems she created instead -Ariel is a typical passive and helpless damsel in distress -Ariel is a stupid reckless jerk who puts others in danger and doesn't care and is rude and ungrateful to her father and doesn't understand concequences. -Ariel sells her voice and puts her kingdom in danger so she can be with a man. -Ariel is a spoiled brat (like Caillou) who runs away from home because she didn't get what she wanted and puts the world in danger and relies on others to save her and doesn't learn her lession and gets what she wants in the end.
Alone Ambitious Because of Me Comfortable with You Déjà vu Déjà vu (Red Winter Remix) Energy Energy (Dream Away) - Instrumental Energy (Float Away) - A Cappella Freedom Street G.I.S.H.A.L. Lonely Heart Midnights No Links Remotely Beautiful Say the Right Thing 7 Years in 7 Weeks Tears of Tomorrow Time Up Truth (Remix)
![[4K직캠] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - FOREVER](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PS3UAFto1z8/mqdefault.jpg)
Gabby Gabby got off way too easy. She was basically rewarded for being a psychopath.
Fr. Every other TS villain faced life changing consequences for their actions. Gabi just gets rewarded for psychologically manipulating Woody to agree to give up his voice box.
the problem now is that they don’t make their villains get tortured anymore
The real villain of toy story 4 is whoever convinced Pixar to make the movie in the first place
Lotso was the worst!!!
She was not psychopath in the first place
I absolutely love the fan theory that Syndrome was such a hero fanatic that he went to Edna to make his costume, but she knew he killed her friends, so she gave him a cape, knowing that it would kill him someday.
(Also, my favorite thing about Muntz is how he became so paranoid and mad that he eventually assumed anyone he met in the rainforest was really just there to find the bird and steal his credit, disbelieving their perfectly reasonable and true reasons for being out there, and so he killed them. Took me a while to catch onto that one)
edna is best girl
@@callmeaprilroseorisha404Edna is the real hero
I really do like Charles Muntz. He's basically what Carl would have become. If you think about it, he never let go of finding the bird, he sacrificed having a normal life just to find this bird. Similar to how Carl struggled in letting go of Ellie and her passing. I love it when villains are basically just alternate versions of the protagonist
Other than Syndrome, Pixar villains never really made much of an impact on me. Sure characters like Hopper, Randall, Waternoose, Stinky Pete, and Lotso were solid antagonists that filled their roles well, but they were clearly a couple steps down from the Disney Renaissance villains like Scar, Frollo, Jafar, Ursula, and Ratigan or the Dreamworks villains like Rameses, Tai Lung, Lord Shen, and the Fairy Godmother. Pixar always tends to play their antagonists pretty straight, but they also don't go full-throttle by making them truly frightening to face.
You forgot Pitch Black from dreamworks, as a kid it was quite scary and I agree Pixar or Disney villains never really hit the nail on that.
I actually think hopper is an amazing villain. Sure, he may not have some super clever plan or tragic backstory, but he’s just pure menacing and I think that’s all he needed to be. As a kid he and the other grasshoppers scared the shit out of me; any time he enters the scene you can just instantly feel the weight of his presence and that alone is actually pretty impressive to pull off with a character like that.
I definitely agree, especially because of Death in Puss in Boots the last wish. Disney and Pixar haven't given us any animated villains that really scare you.
Stinkey Pete is such an underrated character. He's honestly brilliantly written. He's basically the Toy that no one wanted. Waiting years on a shelf. He's worth nothing but in perfect condition. This changes when he meets Jessie and Bullseye. He now has a chance to be admired and be worth something for the rest of his life in Tokyo. Then Woody comes into the picture but decides that he doesn't want to be apart of the set. All of Pete's years of waiting will be for nothing without Woody. His years of preserving his condition will all pay off if he can just get Woody to come with. He stops at nothing to achieve his goal. The toys eventually defeat him and cause him experience his worst nightmare. To Cap it all off, he is sent away to be with an artistic little girl, who will ruin his perfect condition forever, completely stripping him of any worth he has. It's brilliant. He receives what he never had, just not in the way that we wanted.
Zurg in Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins was great.
How does Sid destroying toys make him a sociopath? I mean to the toys he might seem like a sociopath but he had no ideal that they were alive
There's even a theory that he became the garbage man in toy story 3 (that part is confirmed) so he could give thrown away toys a new life.
Honestly, Hopper, Lotso, and Syndrome were the most solid villains in my opinion.
I agree, Hopper was an antagonist in every sense of the word (he was evil, but hey he had to assure the survival of his species)
-Lotso is a VILLAIN with a tragic backstory done right since even if his past was sad he was still a rotten person who blew up every single chance at redemption he was offered, something that..
-Syndrome didn't had, imo he is the only one of Pixar/Disney tragic villains who legit could have been a hero had he not been threated really badly by his own hero
These are the only villains I remember from Pixar ngl.
0:10
This was uncalled for.
Chick hicks was a placeholder for a villain, meant to give the kids something to look to as “the bad guy”. The real conflict was with lightning himself, and his turn from selfish and cold to thinking of others before himself.
i think its important to note the distinction between 'villain' and 'antagonist'. havent seen cars but if chick hicks is meant to be seen as 'the bad guy' that MAKES him a villain - the antagonist would be mcqueen, as hes getting in the way of his own goal (being a better person)
@@wtnv good point
Imagine if in Up, Frederickson's old hero Muntz was actually dead. All of the dogs (maybe they don't even have the talking collars) were still being loyal to him and his memory by trying to find and capture the bird. They are stuck on that aspect of their love for their old master. His bones sit in the captain's seat of the airship and the dogs are trying to fulfill his final mission.
The parallel is that as they are trying to honor their beloved master by chasing down a bird, while Frederickson is trying to honor his beloved wife by taking a house to a waterfall.
Instead of learning the emotional lesson and then just defeating a villain, Frederickson learns and shares that lesson with the dogs, helping them move on.
I've always thought that would make the film so much better.
I think you missed the point: Carl and Charles are meant to be reflections of each other. They’re not so different because they both hold on to the past. Carl learns to finally let go of the past and live the rest of his life. Muntz however doesn’t let go of the past and dies trying to reclaim his reputation he lost all those years ago rather than just moving on and accepting it
@@silashurd3597 that's a good point. But in this other scenario both Carl and the dogs are fixating on what they think was important for their lost loved one, failing to miss a bigger message.
Either way, Up is still one of my favorite Pixar films.
When you think about it, Pixar's Syndrome from The Incredibles and Dreamworks' Titan from Megamind are very similar characters. Both of them are motivated by selfish and petty entitlement and spite. They're not exactly the same, but it's still easy to draw parallels between the two. In particular, both of them are fully willing to deliberately cause harm if it means they can swoop in and "save the day" and be praised by others for doing so, and both throw a tantrum when this doesn't work, as though anyone and everyone else but themselves is to blame for it.
Imo auto is underrated Simply beacuse its a true ai villain
No emotions no feelings nothing
He is just ai following its program
the cars 2 slander is craaazy
Right?? It’s not that bad of a movie; I feel like if it was labeled as a spinoff rather than “cars 2” then it wouldn’t be so hated because it has barely anything to do with the original. Criminally underrated imo
Cars 2 was awesome and im not gonna have it any other way
Anyone notice how no Toy Story villains have died? 😊(so far at least)
I mean they are toys 🤷
Although Lotso had a fate worse than death, something that he REALLY deserved
Wait what about the third Toy Story villain?
@@PancakeTheKat Lotso? Oh, he's living a lovely life as a truck decoration!
@@PancakeTheKat he wishes he was dead
As averagely okay as A Bug's Life is in my opinion, I think it's still worth seeing because of two elements.
1. The circus bugs which are really funny and have great voice actors like Denis Leary, David Hyde Pierce, Brad Garrett, Madeline Kahn, etc. and the circus bugs also having a hilarious circus owner as well.
2. Hopper. Say whatever you want about Kevin Spacey but for me he really does a fantastic job and is honestly one of my favorite performances from him. The character is also legit interesting as well having a great backstory, a design that is a little bit more detailed than I remembered as a kid, is legit intimidating and has great monologues to pair it up too. (Edit: All of those reasons alone make Hopper my favorite not just Pixar, but Disney villain in general)
Yeah A Bug's Life has it's problems such as having a predictable story and a main character that is just basically forgettable and not that memorable. But these two elements I do think keep the movie afloat and I think is worth just an hour and a half.
Fantastic video! I love watching your new videos!
I know that not many people liked the movie Luca as much as I did but Ercole was a villain that embodies the male alternative to the mean girl. And also just authoritarianism in general.
Luca is great. Who didn't like it?
@@mardenborough. There are people out there who hate on newer Pixar and say it had no plot. Which is not true because Luca had a deep plot about growing up and accepting others. Also sorry for the late reply btw.
Really, when you really think about syndrome, the only reason he is a villian is because he's killing humans out of spite due to his childhood hero. Removing the crap ton of messed up ideals and murder, developing tech that would allow people the mimic the power of heros, thus allowing anyone who could afford it to easily defend themselves against, or even seek and fight threats to the public, not the worst idea. If Mr. Incredible hadn't accidentally enabled syndrome to kill supers, then he honestly isn't the worst guy. Although this would devalue supers a bit, supers would still have unique biological traits they could use to fight crime (like, you can't reproduce invisibility or stretchy bodies without magic. Even for the abilities that could be reproduced like flying, biological could still be better than the mimic, like not worrying about flight patterns.)
Awesome video man.😎
Hot take, but I actually think screenslaver is a pretty solid villain. I think the main reason she gets so much backlash is because the “plot twist” is so embarrassingly predictable. But if you take out the twist aspect and look at her plan, motivations, and the threat she imposes on the heroes, I think she’s pretty cool. Also the screenslaver mask is one of the dopest and scariest looking designs of any Pixar villain
Not really, superheroes were literally already illegal so her doing everything possible to help superheroes become legal again THEN trying to enact her master plan is just incredibly stupid. From the getgo she could've just tried to convince her brother that legalizing superheroes would be too difficult to achieve or that it wouldn't be worth it or she could've set up some kind of plan that would secretly be doomed to fail before ever getting them anywhere.
The concept for the Screenslaver would have been great...if it was in a better movie. The overall writing of that movie is predictable and unfocused, leaving plot holes that make her motivations seem ridiculous. Superheroes were made illegal for no good reason after the original had implied that they were accepted after the incident with the city destroying robot. Pixar's villains tend to exist to push against the main character's ideals. Screenslaver really doesn't do that, partially becasue the other characters are written so poorly compared to the original. Their conflicts aren't clear, so the villain has nothing to bounce off of. Her motivation is also pretty silly too becasue of that plot hole. People being dependant on superheroes too much? The backstory is silly becasue her father made a stupid decision that really isn't the fault of superheroes at all and makes her motivation seem hollow. It's a shame too. The other superheroes were pretty awful imo except for the Portal Girl, who I think could have been a good character if given the screen time.
It’s not that she thought legalizing superheroes wasn’t worth it. She was sick of people leaving their lives in the hands of superheroes and relying on them for everything, which is why her father died. She helped Winston build up the reputation of superheroes so that all eyes were on them, just so at the last second she would turn them all evil and the public would realize they can’t always trust them. Her entire motivation is that she wants people to think for themselves, hence her screenslaver persona and the idea that people spend too much time listening to media and watching other people do stuff rather than doing it themselves. I think it’s pretty clever.
@Troy Williams the story doesn't really support that interesting villain motivation tho. You find out so late what the intention is. But also she manufactured scenarios where superheroes would be extremely important. In those cases, if a superhero wasn't present, many more people would have died. The evidence shown throughout the movie just doesn't support her ideas. Nothing justifies her feelings. Her father dying was a silly motivation to me becasue he should have gone to the saferoom and waited. Better yet, put the hero phone in the saferoom and call from there. It felt manufactured. Why not have a hero fail to save her father, or heck, even have the hero be the robber to begin with. Like I said, give us more examples of superheroes being bad for society in the way she thinks. Show the media propagandizing heroes to make them seem worth investing in. Becasue the movie set up a society that hates heroes, Screenslaver's plan to destroy hereos doesn't seem necessary. We can root for the protagonists becasue we know they are in the right, but still wonder if maybe she had a point.
@@troywilliams2901 as you said yourself the public wasn't actively focusing on superheroes that much to begin with, meaning if Evelyn simply didn't create the screenslaver or setup any other opportunities for Helen to showcase great hero moments to the public, it would've been very easy to not get enough support to lead to new legislation. While I concede the idea behind the screenslaver is rather interesting as it ties into her motivation, her plan is ultimately too complex and prone to potential failure when there would be so many simpler methods someone as smart as herself could've used to keep superheroes illegal.
Disney villains (and heroes) recently including ones made by Pixar feel more like politically motivated lectures than they do real people. They feel like they exist more for the sake of political activist social commentary rather than just being for entertainment and storytelling. Dreamworks is on the other side of the coin, still having not forgotten how to tell genuinely good and interesting stories with fleshed out and interesting characters who perfectly fit their roles. If Disney and Pixar can't compete again like they used to and not take sales for granted, the customers are going to simply go to where the product they're looking for is being delivered instead.
You know, there's gonna be a point when whiners like you call "don't be a dick" a politically motivated lecture.
Nice video, good job 👍🏻
Maybe next time don't use such a distracting musical cue in the background, but apart of this 🥰
based background song choice
What’s the name of the song?
OMG
Daniel give me coffee!
Disney/Pixar have overused the twist villain and the family trauma tropes.
I love that complaint, and it's not totally played out at all. Because, you know, Disney really needed a couple thousand queer-coded Dark=Evil villains, right?
The villain of ratatouille is remi, skinner is just doing his job. But remi is stealing. Endangering his own clan and biting rats have over 20+ Desires that we don’t want all around the kitchen
**Movie Quality**
Dreamworks >>>> Pixar>Disney >Illumination
You forgot Sony animation.
3:55 is toxic by bspears playing in the bg lol
GREAT VIDEO ALDONE 👍🩵
I like Zurg
Some Villains They Do Some Bad Things In The Movie When Start They’re Ask Back
Honestly syndrome was like Jason tod of the Incredibles .
Jason Todd was never a mass-murderer and only killed criminals (I’ve read Under the Red Hood). Though I do agree that Syndrome is the best Pixar villain in terms of screen presence and sheer evilness
Anybody else hear the background music for toxic in the video?
Villans
Plot twist sid had schizophrenia
What do you mean?
@@Dilmahkana the toys didn’t come alive in front of him and he was just having an episode
Sid is just a kid having fun
The content of what he was doing is fine (playing with toys, having fun), but the context of that is not so fine (creatively sadistic, destructive).
Nope, it goes way deeper than that and I'm amazed at how many people defend him. He's literally a disturbed child, no one in their right mind sets toys on fire and blows them up, etc.
@@RedRoseSeptember22 damn I must've been a fucked up kid
@@Dilmahkana I consider him very creative, yeah the toys suffered but how would he know that?
He could legit have been an artist.
Argument could also be made that he’s just looking for an outlet for a less than perfect home life, as I have a theory that his dad has alcohol problems (when Buzz sees the commercial of himself, it looks like Sid’s dad is passed out drunk). Not much else to support this, but it’s a theory I entertain
i assume you never sleep
0 dislikes rn
I've been watching your videos and you're doing a really good job being objective and critical.
Now here's an idea. How about you talking about the criticism of The Little Mermaid since the hatred and criticism has gotten worse over the years with people complaining about:
1. Prince Eric is too perfect and bland
2. The romance is underdeveloped and bland
3. The story is a bland and cliche princess story about a girl who wants a boy and waits for a boy to save her
4. The 3rd act is rushed (and focused more on action than on Ariel's character development).
5. This movie has a bad message to teach kids to be a spoiled brat and they can get what they want
6. Ariel is a badly written protagonist because:
-Ariel wants a man (making her 1 dimensional)
-Ariel doesn't change or learn her lesson in the end
-Ariel doesn't redeem herself in the end by saving the day (or doing anything to fix the mess she made) but relies on others save her and fix the problems she created instead
-Ariel is a typical passive and helpless damsel in distress
-Ariel is a stupid reckless jerk who puts others in danger and doesn't care and is rude and ungrateful to her father and doesn't understand concequences.
-Ariel sells her voice and puts her kingdom in danger so she can be with a man.
-Ariel is a spoiled brat (like Caillou) who runs away from home because she didn't get what she wanted and puts the world in danger and relies on others to save her and doesn't learn her lession and gets what she wants in the end.
Alone
Ambitious
Because of Me
Comfortable with You
Déjà vu
Déjà vu (Red Winter Remix)
Energy
Energy (Dream Away) - Instrumental
Energy (Float Away) - A Cappella
Freedom Street
G.I.S.H.A.L.
Lonely Heart
Midnights
No Links
Remotely Beautiful
Say the Right Thing
7 Years in 7 Weeks
Tears of Tomorrow
Time Up
Truth (Remix)
Ernesto de la Cruz is the greatest Disney Pixar's 🦹♂️ ever 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏💐🌸💮💕❤💌💋💋🏆🎖🏅🥇🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
Awesome video man.😎