The reason why Ernesto worked is because He isn't obvious, yeah he is full of himself but that's expected by his high status and it also fits with the plot organically as He comes out as nothing but a fraud who stole someone's reputation which is very accurate to the music industry
Ernesto basically won in Coco. Yeah, at the end of the film, he gets defeated and forgotten, but still, he not only achieved his goal, but it lasted for decades, even after his “tragic” death.
@@AnaandVerity1259he did win, but the ending undoes his victory. his goal was to be remembered forever, which is thwarted by his legacy being tarnished
Because at the beginning, Miguel sees him as an idol he admires but then later on, he sees him as someone villainous. Just like the music industry, you don't know what happens behind the scenes until you've seen it yourself
Because they’re not just evil for the sake of being evil. Ernesto’s ambition and desire for success morphed him into a twisted and crazed egomaniac who couldn’t even value his family, home, or the life and happiness of his best friend. Muntz was a gifted explorer that was shamed for his beliefs and instead of moving on, let his own obsession and crazed delusions of being redeemed rob him of living his life for anything but that. And Waternoose’s company was in his family as he states for generations. It’s not just a company to him. It’s a business of his family’s hard work. And it was so important to him that it caused him to resort to kidnapping and murdering children to prevent it from going out of business. They all feel like real and believable characters with flaws, weaknesses and relatability.
I understand liking Muntz as a character, but as a villain he's pretty underwhelming and tacked on. He becomes an antagonist just because Russle named the bird, causing Muntz to think they're after the bird. Seriously? That's such an ancillary part of the plot. Carl went to Paradise Falls for a completely different reason. Why is the plot getting hung up on this damn bird?
I don't think any of Disney/Pixar's twist villains are "evil for the sake of being evil" (well except for maybe Hans) but what sets the good twist villains apart from the bad ones is the build up towards the reveal, the reveal itself, and how they act once we know they're evil (and we the audience getting to see their true selves for more than like, the four minutes someone like Bellwether got).
Great twist: Ernesto de la Cruz. Shocking, but makes sense after a rewatch. Terrible twist: Hans. A villain reveal so nonsensical that he's the butt of the sequel's jokes.
@@davidw7531Older Buzz Zurg would've worked if they didnt show him from the movie but hinted via after credits big reveal then going through a trilogy where Zurg truly becomes his nemesis only to be revealed in the third or fourth installment as him but older--which could also give the "Buzz, I'm your father" meme hinted at Toy Story--father, not in a biological sense, but rather Zurg was creating a chain of events to butterfly effect the younger Buzz into becoming a person that can fulfill his goal/s, goal/s which was/were firmly opposed to the current Buzz protagonist due to the actions he(Zurg) put him(Lightyear) through. one could also play around themes regarding a chicken-&-egg dilemma regarding decisions & identity.
@@flickcentergaming680I always hated how much they brought him up in Frozen II. When they make such a big deal about this character that isn’t in the movie I think it’s logical to assume it’s foreshadowing him making a return of some kind, but nope. They’re just messing with him for the hell of it. Do they really think they’re clever? Because Hans was not that interesting of a character to begin with, let alone a villain.
Another reason that Waternoose worked so well was because of the relationship he had with Mike and Sulley. He was their boss, but he also seemed like a friend. His attitude made him seem like he would be a hero, or at least help them out, and he was the biggest back stabber. But! He also hated that he felt he needed to be. His attitude never changed from his reveal, and I think disney has lost sight of this, and forced Pixar into a corner because of it.
We also had eyes totally on Randall up to that point, with no sign that anyone else was working with him or had put him up to it. Waternoose and De La Cruz were probably the twist villains that I never saw coming at all.
What makes Waternoose interesting as well is how he seems to regret his actions but sees them as necessary. I firmly remember the line after banishing Mike and Sully, he's talking to Randall. "I never should have let you talk me into this. It was because of you I had to banish my top scarers!" and "Sullivan was TWICE the scarer you'll ever be!"
@@phousefilmsik y Randall wanted that revenge after the the scare games Randall Boggs got jealous of Sulley and Randall almost killed Sulley till Mike saved his life and banished Randall for being jealous
Didn't he yell at Randall over it too? "Because of you I lost my top scarer!" He clearly hated that he had to banish them for knowing too much, and he seemed to be having second thoughts until he was backed into an emotional state
Twist villains are really fun to me, though the twist has to make sense, not simply provide shock factor. I wouldn't mind Disney and Pixar making more twist villains in the future.
What we really need is more villains like Sindrom or Hopper. I miss those times when you knew who the villain was from the start and you get to see more scenes of them in action. At least Dreamworks always have done that
@@NL-X To be fair, it took a while for Syndrome to show up, and while not technically a "twist" villain in its typical use, he was still a surprise. I kinda wanted Disney to do that for Yokai, giving us more screentime to enjoy his danger. I think the manga adaptation featured his cold personality a bit more.
I think the best Disney twist villain ever made is from Wreck-it ralph. They told you why Ralph cant jump game by giving an example. They told you what a unimportant character called Turbo did a few years ago and the consequences of his actions. From the beginning King Candy never acted nice to Phenelope and you dont see him as a good person. you know something is up but dont have any evidence. And then the twist happens. King Candy turns into a scary maniac and you already know Turbo's background.... It's not a twist to move on the plot or increase its run time. its just tells you the true Nature of King Candy with a true background twist. THAT is a good Disney twist.
King Candy was a pretty good twist villain, in all honesty. I sorta guessed partway because of Turbo and King Candy's voices sounding similar. However, there were a lot of great hints to him being a villain before. His immediately trying to say his castle is salmon and not pink before changing the subject is trying to hide the fact that he stole the castle from Vanellope(the castle matches her princess dress). His reasoning for blocking Vanellope from playing seems to be altruistic, but his ability to go into the code and how overpowered King Candy is compared to the rest is shown from how many powers are connected to him. It was a way better villain twist than Hans(I will die saying he was never evil until Disney decided he was at the last second. None of the scenes leading up to his "twist"gave any indication he was bad!)
I also like too how Turbo influences how the other video game characters viewed Ralph. That despite being the villain of his own game, they thought thats who he was as a person until they saw him stand up to what was revealed to be Turbo
To be fair, it’s not so much of a twist villain/antagonist but a villain/antagonist with a twist. Still, the twist doesn’t change Candy/Turbo’s personality or motivation to the point of self-sabotage, so that’s points in its favor.
The best twist villains are the ones where once the twist is revealed, you're like "OHH! I Should have known!" or "Oh crap now everything makes sense!" If the twist villain makes you go "what? Really?" then it's _not_ a good twist villain.
I feel like ernesto really did believe that Miguel was his grandson at some point, as a famous musician, he probably had a lot of ladies on his disposal because of his fame, so to think that one of them got pregnant and had a family isn't too hard to believe.
Yeah, didn't Miguel show Ernesto the picture of his great-great-grandmother, great-grandmother, and great-great-grandfather(with face torn off) whom was wearing the mariachi suit, which was a matching suit to Ernesto's at the time? He could have easily thought "That was my suit, I apparently had that picture taken with that woman and girl. I guess that was my girl."
Syndrome along with Tighten are the best commentary on entitlement I have ever seen, they only try to see their side while ignoring the other's perspective, making them narcissistic and very immature
Self-entitlement. You're looking for the term self-entitlement. Which means that the person isn't actually entitled to something, they just think they are. If you're using entitled/entitlement to mean self-entitled/self-entitlement you're basically saying entitled/entitlement to mean not-entitled/no entitlement. Which looks particularly bad because you're trying to look down on people while showing you can't criticise them properly. Yes I know loads of people do this, it's what makes it bloody annoying.
Honestly, making zurg buzz’s father who went absolutely nuts after buzz’s disappearance (that leads to the main plot of the film) would be a big shocker, but no, we went with the worst time paradox imaginable
I feel like the idea of the villain being an older and far more jaded instance of the protagonist might work, but it would have to be done very carefully.
In Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, Zurg claims to be Buzz’s father to catch him off guard and immediately reveals he’s lying “psyche, made you look you dimwit”
I’d like to add some points for Ernesto that make him a great twist villain. A good twist makes you realize all the little clues with new context and a new view. You mostly notice these bits on a second viewing, knowing the twist. When Miguel gets to the party Ernesto has no idea he has a grandson, while we know Miguel’s great great grandfather left a daughter with Mama Emelda, so Ernesto assumes Miguel is an estranged descendent from possibly a one night stand. Ernesto is happy to feed off the fame Miguel has of being the living boy in the Land of the Dead, and getting more points to him by association, “Have you met MY Grandson, the living boy?” Thirdly, when Ernesto is about to give Miguel his blessing, right before the reveal, the marigold petal doesn’t start glowing when it should have
Bringing up cars 2 makes me realise that it being Mater to crack the code of who the baddy was makes perfect sense and is a great payoff simply because he's a towtruck, one who'd be very familiar with breakdowns, maintenence, and other such stuff because thats just his field of work.
@@MonarchEASI like it because it actually has an interesting plot, and they let Mater show off his skills. Sure, the jokes can fall flat at times, but the overall plot is great. It's the same reason why I like the Planes movies (that and I can relate HARD to Dusty)
@@MonarchEASit's not that people didn't like Cars 2 as a movie, it's that people didn't like Cars 2 as a sequel. Cars 2 has all attributes of what would be a spin-off from the franchise. The main character isn't McQueen, the plot isn't focused on racing(but ties in close to it), it's a spy film, something different from the racing stuff. Well, all that AND the sheer ignorant character of Finn, given how clever he was. You cannot be super smart, super sly, and go that long with such a misconception no matter how much you say to yourself "that isn't him being stupid, just smart". Plus, Cars 2 was a commercial success. It's the reviews where all these things pull it down.
@@MonarchEAS Probably because it took the issues of the original, which mostly amount to the whole "sentient cars" thing being irrelevant despite being the premise of the universe as a whole, and then said "Hey, instead of being about a hotshot racer learning humility in a small town on the side of route who-cares, let's do a spy movie!" It sorta jumps the shark, is the problem, yet ironically it's an element of the "sentient cars" idea that makes Mater figuring out who the real big bad is possible.
Syndrome is more like Chekhov's Gun, something established in one scene, will payoff in another scene. It was established that Incrediboy was a zealous fanboy of Mr. Incredible, who later became a zealous villain of Mr. Incredible, furthermore, Buddy was also established to be painfully adolescent, yet engineering prodigy, as he remained bitter and spiteful for Supers, he used his engineering prowess to build superweapons. Syndrome was basically a serial killer, it was also established he was a stalker, he managed to track down Mr. Incredible in the open scenes of the film, this would later transpire to his ability to single out superheroes, to test out his weapons before murdering the superhero, this is what makes Syndrome the most wicked villain Pixar ever had, he racked up a significant bodycount, but in the end, Buddy was his own worst enemy, his genius turned against his favour, as the inventions turned against its creator, poetic justice summarised.
Honestly the Chekhov's Gun in that movie was Edna's rant on why she doesn't do capes on her suits: it causes death. How does Syndrome die in the end of the movie? The exact same way as Strato Girl.
@@Chaygerbomb chekhovs gun would be something that was established early and becoming relevant later while foreshadowing is a subtle hint of what comes next. since the "no capes" rant was an incident and not a plot device, i think it leans more towards foreshadowing
I think another thing that makes Ernesto work is that he is already a bad person. If Ernesto is his grandfather then that means he abandoned his family and left them with nothing. He got rich and famous while Imelda had to take care of Coco and then Elena all by herself. You go into the movie knowing that this is a bad man and at the very least Hector would be revealed to be the jealous partner who felt he was snubbed by Ernesto. So when it’s revealed that it was Hector you start feeling bad, he wants to cross the bridge, he wants to see his family but it’s too late.
Simple: they’re fleshed out, they’re threats to the heroes, and although there is foreshadowing, the twist usually has an element of surprise. Most of the flaws with Disney twist villains is that they’re missing one or more of these crucial details, while (most of) the Pixar twists have all of these factors. Oh, and they’re also entertaining and smart, which is,,,something you should expect with all villains? That’s just my take on it, though. Great video!
This made me think about how Ernesto applies for a person who lied so much that he even believes himself, or more so that he forgot the truth. That scene where he’s reminded of what he did to his “best friend” just to keep being successful, made me think that maybe that wasn’t something he even remember, not in a day by day type, like literally took him out of guard The most shameless act I’ve ever seen, and that’s why impacted me so much, ‘cause it wasn’t much about him being great or bad, composer or singer, good or evil, but him showing that shameless attitude by not even caring about what he did, forgetting about it and also showing no sign of regret, maybe in the past was it, but not for the afterlife-time He made so furious for that realistic attitude, like everyone said: there’s people like that
What I love about Syndrome, and this also plays into twist villains, is hes still a giddy fanboy even as a supervillain. Case in point: "Tricking the probe by hiding under the bones of another super? Oh man, Im still geeking out about it! Then you had to go and ruin the ride! I mean Mr. Incredible calling for help?? LAME!" Hes judging Mr. Incredible's actions like a new comic book or a TV show episode. He may be a villain whos renounced his idolization, but hes still a geek. Meanwhile you have twist villains like Bellwether who go from meek and awkward and stammering to confident and ruthless and monologuing. As if switching personalities, and its not satisfying. If youre gonna have a twist villain, keep their personality the same for gods sake. Charles Muntz is a fine exception because he was being quite cordial with Carl and entertaining him like a good host, but as soon as he realizes Carl knows something about the bird, that caused a trigger which set him off. So Muntz is a reasonable exception to that rule
It fits with his backstory perfectly. He literally said that he wasn't going to return to civilization until he captured the bird alive. His desire to capture the bird had gotten so intense that he was willing to kill a child just so they wouldn't be in his way.
I’m so mad about Evelyn’s villainy cause it could’ve worked as a good enough story. Her dad could have just been shot before the supers were forced to go underground which could be one of the leading reasons why they had to be banned. After all they failed at saving an advocate for them with a direct line, why should we trust them with simple, everyday people who don’t come with the extra perks and privileges
Tbh screenslaver should've have gotten more potential, should've not been Evelyn, screenslaver could've been his own villain, and now that I think about it, I wish Screenslaver had better villain story ngl he's my favorite villian and he kinda was wasted 😭
@@flameofdestruction271 Would have been way better if Screenslaver was his own character, but working together with Evelyn as behind-the-scenes partners. Screenslaver does the field work while Evelyn does the PR so that they both always win no matter the outcome.
Lotso is one of my all time favorites but for awhile I couldn’t figure out why. The more I think about it, maybe it’s because he’s not just a great manipulator and his ease for playing the friendly almost “maternal” role to the other toys at the daycare. We KNOW from that scene with buzz getting caught that he’s aware of everything going on and he’s got a big role in it, and they make his cruelty obvious once buzz refuses his offer. But his villainy doesn’t REALLY come from his need to stay at the top as much imo. The REAL evil in him is how much he HATES himself and he wants everyone else to feel the same about themselves. Daisy was his whole world and to have that taken away and see only himself be replaced, in his mind that was like being told “you’re expendable you can be traded at any point. But the others (big baby and chuckles) she couldn’t bare to replace them they were SPECIAL.” That’s why he lied about all of them being replaced even chuckles who saw the truth too. It’s why he says “she’s a Barbie doll ken there’s a hundred million just like her” “we’re all just trash getting ready to be thrown away” did you get that? “WE’RE” not “you” he’s PROJECTING all his insecurities about himself into everything he does at the daycare so he can feel like he’s not the only useless and replaceable garbage he sees himself as. But yet, he’s always in the butterfly room with the gentle kids. Why doesn’t he let himself get beat up in the caterpillar room if he’s so garbage? Because deep down, even if a part of him hates her, he still LOVES Daisy and wants to be wanted by kids. Even that is his own way of denying what he really wants and NEEDS; love from a kid, a kid like Daisy who wasn’t “replacing” him, she was trying to keep him with her because she couldn’t STAND being without lotso at all, not the other way around. That honestly makes me cry because despite how horrible he is, to know ALL of his horrible deeds are basically his way of making others feel the same so he can look in the mirror at himself and know he’s not the only worthless toy too just BREAKS me. It’s so personal and deep its far beyond “doing what has to be done” or simple “selfishness” it’s pure PAIN.
Yeah I’m tired of people shitting on Cars 2. It really wasn’t that bad of a movie. Maybe a spy plot isn’t your thing or it wasn’t what you expected from a Cars movie, but I thought it was great. I loved it as a kid.
@@MonarchEAS Agreed. And besides, throwing everything away for the sake of money is a realistic plot/twist because that literally happens in real life.
Personally, I would change the movie to make the twist involve Fillmore (the hippy car) distrusting Axelrod. Have foreshadow the twist more by having Filmore be immediately distrusting of Axelrod instead of it being long after the twist. Show that there are other real fuel alternatives that Axcelrod is trying to defame, like the organic fuel that Filmore made.
Yeah... the bell did not cause Ernesto's second death (although he probably wishes it did). As long as Hector is famous for his music, so too will Ernesto be infamous for stealing it. And since being forgotten is the only thing that can cause second death, he will be trapped under that bell for eternity. So in short, Ernesto got a fate worse than (second) death.
There’s also a fun little easter egg with Charles Muntz in particular. For any keen-eyed Disney historians, they might recognize the play on words with his name being based on the producer Charles Mintz, Walt’s former boss at Universal. He was a rather greedy person that, once Oswald the Lucky Rabbit turned out to be a success, hired away all of Walt’s team (except his good friend Ub Iwerks) behind his back and forced Walt to either accept new terms with less pay or quit, leading to the house of mouse you all know. Given the way Muntz bites the dust at the end of UP, you can tell how they still view the guy. 😂
I think it would have been interesting if someone confronted Evelyn after the twist about how stupid her plans are and how her actions doesn't fit her motives, introducing the fact that some bad people would grab on the vaguest reasoning to justify their bad actions.
Those kind of twist villains are great, some fit in into the good guy role and their betrayal is perfect. Some aren't great but I really like the old Pixar this way.
That was solely for the purpose of spoofing the iconic Darth Vader line “I was your father.” Zurg does it again in the animated series, but then basically tells Buzz “Gotcha!” as his claim was a way to distract him so he could gain the upper hand in battle. It was never intended to be confirmation.
I don’t think of auto as a twist villain. He was just following the orders of the ceo of BnL who outranked everyone on the axiom. No one outranked the ceo so no one could give him new orders
Yeah theres a bit of a grey area with robot characters like Auto. He was really just doing what he was told to do but he still fits into that antagonist character role since he apposes the protagonist’s goals albeit with no emotional incentive. You could maybe argue the true villain was the Ceo giving him those orders in the first place though He’s also a good parallel for Wall-e because he acts of his own accord almost and he can love and has autonomy unlike Auto who is well, automatically acting on commands which means he also archetypically apposes the protagonist as well!
He's actually a good example of why even "Safe" AI can be very dangerous if it's only corregibly safe. I cite him as an example on everything from explaining Robots in Fiction to explaining how Omori should be characterized. One of my favourites
Another trait of Auto's... he takes his orders to the furthest logical extreme. The Axiom was meant to only be in space for 7 years. B&L thought Earth would be habitable again after that time. When it wasn't, order A1-13 simply said _"do not return to Earth"._ More specifically, the command was _"do not return YET",_ as the Axiom continued sending Eve probes to confirm if/when Earth becomes habitable again. Auto incorrectly assumed his order was _"do not return under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, EVER"_ even after the Eve proves that Earth can sustain life. He is an example of AI becoming stupid because it uses "logic" incorrectly and cannot make inferences based on changing circumstances.
@@laziwastaken Glad you think so! I researched a good analogy because I was taking too many lines to describe how he should be characterized when criticizing fanfic (had him become very diplomatic all of a sudden), and I found his behaviour during both the timeloop and the last segment of the game to be very analogous to AUTO, and his thought process, authority calculations and lack of common sense as well.
I mean... Evelyn Deaver didn't just want superheroes to be illegal. She wanted them to be actively villainized. To be hunted. So. Her plan was to get them close to being legalized and then frame them for a tragedy, making them even MORE stigmatized than they already were. The law was working, but in her eyes, she needed it to be more severe. That was her motive.
I think Evelyn could still work as a twist villain (or just a villain) if she wasn't as involved. For example, Winston could say, "My sister has become somewhat of a recluse after our parents passed," or whatever. She could still work with Winston but she would be more in the backlines being the screenslaver on the side to try and foil his plans. To the audience, we would expect her to be the villain. But to heroes it comes as a surprise. Still pretty obvious but I think it works pretty well.
I also would have taken her more seriously if her big reason for hating heroes wasn't so incredibly dumb. The writers really gave a bad and, imo, unbelievable, backstory as her motivation to become a villain. Her dad was a moron and chose to go for a phone instead of the saferoom. And even if he reached the phone first...how would he have called a super and had one arrive to help before he got shot anyway? Just so dumb.
I thought Evelyn was never a bad twist outside of how telegraphed her and the bad backstory. Evelyns plan was to weaponize the public fear of retribution to push them back deeper into the shadows after her plan Also Lightyear was doomed the moment the director said he hated star command
All they had to do was make Tim Allen play Buzz again, or at least get a sound alike like Patrick Warburton. But no! They had to make it Chris Evans who doesn’t suit the character.
i think even a simple line like "It's not enough for you to be illegal, I want the world to hate you into extinction, the people who you claim to protect being your executioner"
The main reason to me the up twist works is because Charles is initially portrayed as a larger than life underdog folk hero. Like he seems like this incredible man and. Your first impression is as an incredible and brave explorer. And when you do meet him he gives off the same feelings at first until the twist itself. The twist feels like if you met john Bunyan and he turned out to be a serial killer who had hundreds of victims.
Personally I liked Axelrod. He wasn't an obvious twist villain and every plot point that led to it fits so well into the reveal. For example, Mater said at the beginning of the film he never leaks oil, then at the party Axelrod leaks and blames Mater due to not knowing him, and given how easily Mater is to believe things he didn't second guess himself along with the fact that Axelrod claimed to have become an electric car which doesn't use oil. But then when Mater realized the bomb was attached with Whitworth Bolts and remembered how the Mastermind's engine was British and used the SAME BOLTS, he finally was able to rethink about that moment of the party and realized the truth. That's hinting on such an early on level and I loved it so much. Cars 2 is super overhated.
COMPLETELY agree! Sure, could Cars 2 been it’s own movie and not part of the “history” in the trilogy….or rewritten with totally different characters with the same plot…yes. But, when you put that behind it, you begin to realize how genius that movie really was. Who cares if it doesn’t “compliment” the story of Lightning McQueen’s coming of age story. It truly shows how dependable Mater can be; despite his “dumb” persona!
that doesn’t make any sense and you’re overthinking it. If Axlerod is an electric car why does he even leak oil? If he wanted to get rich, why not just make the alternative fuel and profit off of that instead of purposefully sabotaging the cars that use it and causing a bunch of chaos using technology that would realistically cost him millions of dollars all just to profit off of oil that was becoming outdated? It would’ve made more sense for the german car to be the main villian and Axlerod to be an innocent victim, they could’ve used any other british car as the lemon boss instead of Axlerod.
@@nitsuareldas1386 he had car buddies that were older and parts were not being made for them anymore So to show the world newer cars are not the future he sabotaged it So older gen cars and parts would fall more into favor again or something like that So axel took the lead on alernative fuel and had it sabotaged so the future of alt fuel is not happening I think that was the plan? Has been years since i had seen it
@@nicktb1999 It was mentioned later in the film that the alternative fuel that Axelrod developed for the race was actually just regular gasoline that was tampered in order to react with the EMP camera. And basically the whole convoluted plot was done in order to raise the value and demand of regular gas in order to profit from the oil pumped from rigs that he owned in the beginning of the film. (The funniest thing is that one of the few cars in the film that saw through the facade was Fillmore, the one who actually developed his own alternate fuel)
Fun detail i noticed: when the tomato hits Ernesto in the crowd scene, it covered his chest like a blood splatter, which was also placed over where his heart would be.
Did anyone else think with Lightyear how Zerg in Toy Story 2 said: "Buzz, I am your father" and thought of that not just as a nod to Star Wars? Just me?
A lot of people were annoyed that Zurg wasn’t Buzz’s father in Lightyear. Though Buzz Lightyear of Star Command (in the episode Stranger Invasion) established Zurg was lying when he said that.
Zurg said he was just messing with Buzz in "BLOSC". I was annoyed that Zurg wasn't an Emperor or didn't have a Death Star, since Andy's toy Buzz was already fighting against the Emperor Zurg(from the description on the back of his box)and Toy Story referenced the Death Star plans.
@@pcdeltalink036 I mean, why have in the line with the planets for the superweapon in "Toy Story 1"and not use it as a reference in this one(since the toy is supposed to be based on the "Lightyear"movie Andy watched...) Even have it on "Buzzurgs"screen could have been a good reference...
@@pcdeltalink036 I understand that but it was already a cartoon within a cartoon and both of the first two Toy Story movies implied that the Buzz Lightyear franchise was essentially a parody of Star Wars.
Honestly, Pixar was great because it was actually surprising. I mean, some trailers ruined what people would be villains("UP", I knew Muntz would be the bad guy, but not the reason)while others, I guessed they would be a twist villain("LIghtyear", I was excited until I guessed the villain would have a twist and I got annoyed when it was revealed)and Evelyn was so obviously the villain, I got annoyed. However, the greatest twist villains of all time from them have to be Stinky Pete,Waternoose, Syndrome and Ernesto De La Cruz. I didn't see any of them coming at all. Stinky Pete seems to be soft spoken, kind and giving good advice, but its all from selfishness as he manipulates Woody into trying to make him stay, using Jesse first, his worries about Andy second and then force when Woody tries to leave, even after he invited Prospector to join Andy's family. Waternoose seemed so friendly with James, with Randall set as such an obvious bad guy, that Waternoose's desperation to save the company was ignored by me. Buddy/Incrediboy had my jaw drop when he said "I am your number one fan..." It was great because it was truly believable, seeming like a silly kid Robin type trying to be a hero and then getting shot down for having no powers(as well as being totally unprepared), only to turn against his former hero and destroy so many former heroes to become the only one, and De La Cruz.... I can't praise "Coco"and its twist enough. The hints throughout, from De La Cruz's interview of "Seizing your moment"to Hector's poisoning death being reenacted in his movie, his lack of care for the music and appearing at his rehearsals and only caring about the fame, the empty and full glass when Hector's friend Chiccaron dies the final death....it's all perfect.I was stunned when I watched the movie. I believed up to that point, Hector was just a lying conman trying to get to the real world, as we're introduced to him trying to trick his way through, while De La Cruz is handsome, brave and seemingly fully on Miguel's side. But its all a facade and he only cared himself(the biggest proof being how he made "Remember Me",a soft song for Hector's daughter a big punchy number about himself.) Disney's twist villains are so goddamn awful by comparison. Hans was not at all believable, because it happened last second. He was SO not evil early on, they just made him bad at that moment because that was the ONLY way to do the twist.None of his actions up to that point were bad or hinted that he was evil. Professor Callahan from "Big Hero 6" was obviously the bad guy Yokai because they were leaning soooooo hard into Industrialist Alister Krei being the man in the mask.Just...Pixar, when it does a twist villain right, they do a twist villain right.
the thing with pixar twist villains is that they were so stuck in a situation that they had nothing else to do but resort to the dark side. its like they were the victims too, in a situation they couldn’t escape from. thats the best i can describe it since i find pixar twist villains to be better and more effective than the other disney twist villains
I really like up’s twist villain because it’s not a movie you’d expect to have a villain at all, so when he shows up looking all devious it gets you thinking about the possibilities
Looking back at Incredibles 2, Screenslaver was such a massive disappointment especially since how much he was teased in the trailers, especially since his whole premise would have been amazing if they went in that direction. A villain who takes control over the masses through the use of television. Instead of a massive stop-the-boat-from-crashing-into-the-city disaster, imagine a scenario where the heroes are forced to fight a bunch of mind controlled civilians who had tuned in to watch the signing of the Superhero Accord. Not only will the stakes be much higher, but the heroes will be forced to find a way to deal with the situation without injuring the mind controlled masses. (Also, give him the power to transport himself and objects through televisions, kind of like Mirror Master in the Flash) As for Evelyn, imagine if she was built up to be the twist villain, but it is later revealed that while she did develop the mind-control device, the Screenslaver who got his hands on it, was actually the one controlling her behind the scenes, and Evelyn hating superheroes is how she is. Also, one of my biggest nitpicks with the film was something that wasn't addressed in the first film, when Superheroes became illegal, what happened to all of the Supervillians? We had the Underminer who originally declared war on peace and happiness in the first film, and he proceeded to rob a bank in the sequel (maybe he was declaring war on the peace and happiness of billionaire wallets). After that opening scene, besides everything that was done by Evelyn, the only other crime happened at the end of the film, and it just looked like another bank robbery getaway. One would think that in a society where Heroes are illegal, crime should be much more prevalent. So my rough theoretical idea for Incredibles 2 would have been this: The opening still plays out just the same, but Mr. Incredible will mention that there was something off about the Underminer. Winston will later reveal that ever since the Incredibles saved the city in the first film, Supervillains have been showing up much more frequently and he wants to take this as an opportunity for Heroes to get back in the public's favor. The film will play out similarly with the occasional villain-of-the-week trying to thwart Elastigirl during the train and helicopter scene where is later revealed that the Screenslaver was controlling the other villains in order for public perception for heroes rise again, so that during the signing of the Superhero Accord, there would be thousands of people perfectly positioned in anticipation in front of a television, perfect targets for his hoard of spider-crab-goggles (yes, the goggles can now crawl around) to take over. (Maybe the Screenslaver was Evelyn's classmate or something which is why he knew about the mind-control tech in the first place and why he was able to control Evelyn in this theoretical scenario). The climax of the film would have the Incredibles and any other available heroes fight against the mind controlled heroes, villains and civilians and stop Screenslaver's plan (how that happens I leave that up to your imagination) The more I think about the details of this film and what it could have been, the more my brain hurts, and makes anything else that people come up with sound better in comparison to what we finally got...
Dude, that honestly sounds fantastic. If there was ever a chance to rewrite and remake a movie, I hope to God someone hires you, because that rewrite? Phenomenal!
That sounds brilliant - that would really play on what makes a hero and whether heroes are born or made. Or maybe how heroes either seek notoriety or simply helping others
@@gabutman6144 yeah probably it’s more about Mater so should’ve probably been called something like “Cars: Mater’s Adventure” or something. If it wasn’t marketed as a sequel I think the general perception of it wouldn’t be as bad.
In short, a twist villain only works when 1. The twist is not contrived due to plot and the morals of the villain stay consistent. 2. The plan itself follows a logical 1+1=2(f*ck Hans). Abd 3. The twist is either himted at fir the audiences benifit, or is a genuine reveal that isn't easily guessed by those in elementary school. Take notes Disney.
That's one of the very few things I didn't like about Zootopia, Bellwether being the villain came out of nowhere, or at least that's how I saw it. Also, f*ck Hans.
Ernesto is my favorite twist villain because not only does it work in the context of the film but the film also provides clues that foreshadow the twist without spoiling it.
an honorable mention should be john silver from treasure planet because he was an amazing villain, its just sad that movie doesn't get the recognition it deserves
The way I kind of assume Evelyns plan worked was that she didn't just want heroes to stay underground, she wanted to have them banned permanently. The first movie shows them being banned for recklessness but ends with people realizing they need them again. So she builds up Elastagirl to get a bunch of world leaders in one place, brings in new potential heroes, then uses them to attack the leaders so that Heroes will be banned permanently. Since this would take down what's left of the classic heroes (Elastagirl, Frozone, Mr. Incredible) but also ruin the perception of potential new heroes (Violet, Dash, Void, etc.) Looking at it that way it makes sense why she needs to build heroes up to make them fall harder, but they don't explain this well and it honeslty would have just been better if both Devers just invented Screenslaver to give the heroes someone to fight. They could have even done the theory that Syndrome was a partner of theirs. Having him as the potential new hero and when that failed turning back to the old heroes who were already cemented and stong enough to bring the new villains down. Then your epic climax would have been the classics finding out and them having to do mind control thing to try and discredit them. The kids have to rally the newbie hereos to their side and you can really show off how good the original's were and how far the newbies have to come. Then even as their taken away the Devers still gto there wish, the heroes are back.
A recurring pattern I'm starting to see with many of these twist villains is that their villainy was a consequence of the protagonist getting in their way, rather than some sinister plan they'd been cooking up from the beginning (with exceptions of course, I see you Syndrome). It really gives the impression that, had things worked out differently, they might not have had to be defeated in the first place.
It’s ok to have plots with no villains (Inside Out did it perfectly), but a good villain can make a big difference. I don’t agree that the Coco villain twist really worked because it was too telegraphed and not well thought out, but movies like Monsters, Inc worked great because they set up a great if straightforward villain with Randall, only to reveal that his scheme ran deeper than realized when the boss also turns out to be in on it. It raised the stakes organically because you thought you already saw the limits of the villain plot, but it was just the surface. I don’t think just having a twist villain makes Pixar movies good, but they shouldn’t be afraid to make clear bad guys a thing. But they also need to up their writing quality, since that has really been the dagger in their side with their last batch of releases.
Inside Out worked well without a villain because A. The setting didn’t really require it, being inside the mind of a 12-year old, and B. Joy was the antagonist of the story in her own way. She does everything to try and make Riley happy and she loathes the idea of Sadness even being near the console because “Riley will be sad”. It’s the movie’s equivalent of trying to bury your emotions and pretend you’re happy, which never works. The true message was learning that sometimes being sad is necessary to be emotionally healthy, and Joy learning that Sadness was necessary for letting others know Riley was in distress.
The point of Evelin’s and Axelrod’s plans is the concept of “the bigger they are, the harder they fall”. They intentionally build up the reputation of supers and alternative fuel so that when that comes crashing down, the impact is much greater. It makes it so there is so much distrust with the concept that people like Evelin’s brother and Lightning, who would normally advocate for supers and alternative fuels, won’t speak up. These plans only failed because someone saw through the ruse and exposed it.
What really bothers me about Zurg in the Lightyear movie, is the fact he was in the right. What he wanted was objectively correct. He wanted to prevent his people from being stranded on a hellscape of a planet.
I looking back I can kind of see why Ernesto would be the villain, because maybe I’m just reading too much into this, but I don’t think Disney/Pixar wouldn’t have someone who was such a heroic icon to the main character die in such a stupid way, unless he was meant to have a different role.
Slight correction Sputnik wasnt a toy. It was the name of a USSR sattelite during the space race. The USSR beat the US to space but the US beat the USSR to the moon, thus winning said race In what Pete said, saying Sputnik was him referencing how when astronauts & cosmonauts became the new thing across the globe, interest in cowboys & the wild west basically went away near instantly
Video was 20 minutes but felt like an hour from how well made it was, the writing, there's no wasted breath or repeating. You sound incredibly knowledgeable and well spoken, and it's obvious how much you care
Evelyn in the incredibles will always make me think about Oogways quote from the first Kung fu panda when he was talk to shifu “One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.” Which is literally what happened to her everything she did allowed the supers to prove themselves to be useful to the world and therefore allow the treaty to be signed
maybe Zurg as we know him could still exist. Didn't old Buzz say he got the suit and ship and robots from the distant future? Maybe the noise the robots make isn't just a random sound. idk how many people stayed til the very very end of the credits, but I think a sequel was hinted at.
I feel like the deleted scenes from WALL-E made Auto a little bit better than the other version of him we already got. Deleted scenes like Secret Files.
My ranking for Pixar twist villains: 1. Mr. Waternoose 2. Stinky Pete 3. Ernesto De La Cruz 4. Lotso 5. Charles Muntz 6. AUTO 7. Evelyn Deavor 8. Zurg/Buzz Lightyear
I never got why people felt every movie needed villains. Sometimes a person can just work through their own stuff without needing some guy to be twisting his mustache tying your dreams to the railroad tracks.
I’m glad someone else thinks this. I don’t understand where this want suddenly came from I swear before no one was talking about this but now everyone wants villains.
Basically, to make a good twist villain, the trick is to write them and their role in the story in such a way that a) the character doesn't actually change, and b) the audience doesn't see their outing as a villain coming, but then looks back at everything that happened before that point and thinks "My God! That makes sense!"
Another thing about auto is that he contrasts with the protagonists. The other robots have slowly developed human emotions which even went against their own code, but auto stayed this shallow husk of a thing throughout its existence
Also, I believe you should check out the up theory by the thorizer where he discusses how the villain is actually an imposter who was a superfan, and actually killed the real Charles, since the real one would actually be too old to be alive.
Feels like it's worth noting that the plot of Cars 2 ends up revealing the "alternative fuel" was basically just gasoline but with a special "explodes when microwaved" feature, essentially. The reason the guy couldn't use the alternative fuel was it was a scam to discredit other alternative fuel sources from day 0 of its use. If it weren't discredited, someone would've figured out it was fake all along eventually anyways. This plan is stupid, yes, but that's because it's extravagant stupid rather than because they had better options.
Pixar villains are all the same. They seem like a chill guy in the beginning until the protagonist figures out that they are more than what they seem. Then the villain then notices that the hero noticed, which in turn makes them show their true colors.
Movies do not really need a villain to defeat if the story is strong on it's own But I get it , setting the writing scale to hard mode is problematic. Videogame makers try their hardest to keep it on easy so the series can continue. But Hollywood types tend to be high stacks gamblers , so we have a villain drought.
Waternoose actually kinda hits harder after Monsters University. During the ending, we see a news ariticle talking about how Mike and Sully are rising through the company, so Waternoose had to have known about them even before they were his top staff. He's one of the few twist villains that genuinely liked the heroes, but did what he had to in his eyes.
Basically: Because you actually see their personality and ambitions, and can understand why they would go full villain. Main studio Disney twist villains don’t work because you don’t actually know what their motivations are, and their personalities do a full 180 from how they’re introduced.
1:52. Buddy(Syndrome) was a kid who refused to listen when it mattered. And was too young to really grasp the seriousness of Superhero work. Mr. Incredible WASN'T looking in taking on a sidekick, and if he was, it wouldn't be a kid. No matter if they're inventive, or have powers of their own.
The problem with Muntz being a twist villain was it was far too obvious. The second we meet him I knew he was the villain. Mostly because...there was literally no one else in the movie by that point to even BE a villain.
I think Incredibles 2 would have worked if Evelyn was advocating against supers and had Screenslayver as a lackey being the pizza guy from the red herring, but the goggles still controlling him like we’ve seen that it can do. Also, she’s have pizza a lot because of that.
I was hoping that there would be an earth elemental villain in Elemental. Like some businessman who wants to ruin Fire Town because he hates how fire can burn their leaves.
Charles Muntz is a great twist villain, a man who went insane and bitter from being rejected and ridiculed by the explorers organisation. His relationship with Kevin was that of Captain Abe and Moby Dick.
So basically... in order for a twist villain to work, they have to be a well written villain with a twist... not just a twist for the sake of having a twist. Who knew right?
0:31 I had a sudden click of an idea for elemntal when it should have had a villian thats goes back into the elements can't mix idea, were they actually want mix the elements to come together to become a greater force. Just the way they mix the elements comes at he cost of each's individuality, showing the bad way of mixing people together into a team. I believe this needs additionally better worldbuilding as we don't really know in elemental what the problems are aside from the protaganists. like somehow they're first ever mixed couple when most likely there are plenty that do work, like earth and water could work really well when mixed we never were given a reason to why that didn't work BUt fire doesn't seem to have an element it doesn't destroy or break away like earth. it would be instersting how an individual can overcomes their flaws to obtain physicall touch from someone outside their family, as while its great they would like more.
One complaint I have about elementals is why is fire so discriminated against? They are by far the weakest element, I mean they're one of the two elements that we know can be killed. (There is no confirmed way to kill an earth elemental or an air elemental) the worst they can do to an earth elemental is burn their hair and they seem to have absolutely no effect on air elementals. Also we see that water elementals can survive being evaporated but fire elementals can't survive being in contact with water. Also when water elementals boil it is over time meaning that they can potentially save themselves but when a fire elemental comes into contact with water it is instantaneous.
Tldw; Pixar's twist villains work well due to their relatability and the twist connects/fits to the story and their villainy makes sense. They're not evil for the sake of being evil.
One of my favorite twist villians was Trader Johann from the How To Train Your Dragon series. It was so out of the blue but once you go back and rewatch and think about it... it makes a ton of sense and your left there thinking "HOW DID I NEVER SEE THIS COMING?!"
Stinky Pete and Lotso are such interesting villains bc they have a similar root of rejection & fear of obsolescence that fuels their behavior, but they come to different conclusions. Stinky Pete was the least popular of all the characters in Woody’s Roundup, so he’s never experienced the joy of play or the love of a child. He’s jealous of the others bc he also wants to be loved, but he also sees his only value as a pristine collectors item bc it’s the closest he can come to feeling that love. Toy Story 2 & 3 are in a weird way, both about confronting fear of death. The breakable, replaceable nature of toys mixed with the anxiety of you or your kid growing old. With woody’s broken arm, he’s become increasingly anxious abt the idea of being thrown away-unloved or worse, destroyed. Stinky Pete has chosen a life of immortal, perfectly preserved but impersonal admiration behind glass, whereas woody is trading in literal and figurative immortality in the form of preservation & legacy for a temporal & imperfect life with Andy where he will experience genuine love. That’s why Pete’s “punishment” is fitting. When he is placed in to the backpack of the artist girl, he is subjected to a life in which he cannot detach & remain pristine forever. He will be marked, he will experience wear & tear, he will change, he will necessarily have to confront his mortality, but he will also experience genuine love. While Pete assuages his anxieties about rejection & disposability by essentially trying to become immortal, Lotso has swung in the other direction. He was abandoned & from his perspective, replaced by Daisy so he became convinced of his own disposable nature. He thinks the relationship between toys & humans is meaningless and transferable. Therefore, the only way to glean meaning of his life is to at lease ascend a hierarchy of toys he views as equally disposable. The suffering of the toys in the caterpillar room does not matter bc he sees toys as all the same. He is envious of but also disgusted by toys who have meaningful relationships with their kid, so he relishes in chances to bring other toys down to his level and convince them they are all equally worthless. The damage done to you does not matter, my cruelty to you does not matter, bc there will be new toys tomorrow, and even tho we are all worthless, I’m now the one with the big boot and you’re not. Meanwhile, the only way to get meaning out of a relationship with a kid is for it to be in the impersonal daycare. Kids age out of daycare, so to avoid putting himself in a situation where he feels true attachment to another child only to potentially get hurt, he puts himself in a situation where the kids are equally replaceable. He still wants to be loved, but he hates himself for that want, so he does everything he can to avoid being hurt, which includes grabbing power and putting in a hierarchy where he is at the top. In order for the toys defeat Lotso, they have to get to Big Baby and to a lesser extent, Ken. Ken expressing that Andy’s Barbie is special to him, not replaceable, is thematically important. Same with Big Baby realizing that Daisy loved him the whole time. The thematic conclusion of the story is reached when Andy’s mother expresses that she wishes she could be with him at college, and Andy assured her that she will be with him, in his heart. The point is that relationships remain meaningful and treasured to the people in them, even if they are temporary, even if they change. Daisy treasured Lotso, even if he didn’t know it. Andy will always have memories of the toys even if as an adult, he no longer needs them, and the toys will always love him. Even if they have a new owner, it’s not replacement, it’s openness to a new relationship & a willingness to continue to accept love and vulnerability and change. This is the thing that I think isn’t touched on in the video. That the villain’s motive has to cohere with the theme, and is usually a foil or extreme extension of the protagonist. Woody’s worst fears are about being disposed of, being unloved, and being replaced. That’s what the first one is about as well, that’s what buzz represented to woody at one point, too. Pete and lotso are what happens when those fears get the better of you, and twist you into someone cruel, unwilling to accept change, vulnerability, or love. Ernesto de La Cruz is a dark representation of Miguel’s dream to pursue music, the idea of pursuing a dream “no matter the cost”. I feel like what works with Monsters Inc. is that the realization that waternoose is evil coincides with Sully’s character arc as a whole & how the world is reframed to the audience by his change in perspective. When scaring kids was framed as innocuous and fairly harmless, even a little funny, and sully was good at it, it makes sense that we would not question waternoose or his motives. However, I think waternoose’s callous disposal of Sully & his pivoting to more extreme measures to keep the company open is just a natural extension of the cruelty we realize the whole company has been founded on the whole time. The movie also challenges essentialism. Initially, Monsters are monsters, they are meant to scare & that is why the structure goes unchallenged. However, we see this is not the truth. Monsters do not have to be frightening. Boo was not afraid of Sully until he scared the simlutor, and she saw. Monsters are not doomed to be scary, they can be understood and loved. They can choose a different path, which is what we see at the end when Sully reform the company. It’s important that Sully realizes that scaring kids isn’t a fun game when he sees boo genuinely frightened. He views the scaring as "not real" until he sees her. Thematically, this movie i think speaks to parents and kids because its about being responsible for someone other than yourself and realizing your impact on others. Yes, the company hurting would probably impact the monster economy & cause an energy crisis, but there has been a better, less harmful alternative this entire time to scares and nobody ever bothered to look for altnernate sources. By the end, we see Monster Inc for what it is. This is not the trope of One Of the Good Bosses, theirs was always a company that was profit driven and fueled through exploitation & cruelty. If the first form of cruelty (scaring kids) can be justified, then anything more extreme can be justified. A more humane solution would genuinely not cross the mind of someone like waternoose. Btw, I know the fact that Monster University had a completely different framing of the scaring muddies the water of the theming, bc in that story the scaring is always framed as comedic & an aspirational job and even helps them in the climax. Which is at odds with the lesson of monsters Inc. But it’s trying to tell a different message than MI, so I don’t rly mind it.
I love what you said about a villain needing to work thematically with the film. The theme of the Incredibles is that no one can truly work alone. Bob learns this, but Syndrome doesn't and dies because of it. Coco teaches us that family bonds are important and can't be taken for granted. Ernesto is brought down by his disregard for family bonds (like trying to kill the kid he thought was his grandson). Incredibles 2 focuses on the importance of family and working together through hard times, much like the first, so Evelyn's theme of over-reliance on supers and tech doesn't fit anywhere. There's no foils or parallels, just teo different themes. It would have worked much better if the villain was someone tired of being in their family member's shadow or feeling abandoned by a super family member because that works with the theme. Even in Zootopia, Bellweather fails to match the theme of not judging by appearances. People ignore her as a potential villain not because she's a sheep and an assistant, but because she purposely put on an act of innocence. It would have worked better if she had always been sassy and confident, but people overlooked her because she was a sheep.
Out of the villains I feel bad the most for Waternoose because he clearly doesn’t know there is another way to save his company and end the energy crisis. Mike/Sully don’t exactly mention it that it doesn’t have to be this way either, it just slips past the shock of the situation. I imagine either easy write off there is that Waternoose could just dig his heels and refuses to change tradition even if it betters everyone’s situation given his complaints of how things aren’t like the ‘old days’. But if he’s willing to fund and create a child scream extractor he’s already eschewing it and expresses often he doesn’t like it’s methods either.
I really like Pixar villain And Disney Villains It's a shame we don't get Tham anymore because I think a good or even a great villain can give a story much to say but it has to be done right Some of my personal favorite anime have great Villains One piece is one that has a cast of heroes and Villains
4:36 also your forgetting the fact that the entire plot for the movie was intentionally leaked through the Lego incredibles game which kinda spoiled the entire movie it’s like if the I am your father line from Star Wars was leaked a day before the the empire strikes back was released that probably would’ve drastically decreased the impact of those words to the audience.
I will say this, and have been for a while, I can kinda see what Screen Slaver’s intentions are. Yes the law against supers exist, but that could get changed in the future like how it’s working to get changed at the time and so she, wanting them gone for good, helps them get back in the public’s good graces only to try and control them and make them seem like the only reason the heroes were trying to be good was to get back control and make them seem manipulative. This in turn would make the anti-hero law even more solidified and near permanent, allowing her goal to be achieved.
While I'll admit I enjoyed Lightyear, I can also agree the story was held back by trying to make Zurg a sympathetic villain/future Buzz. As open was I was to the idea I can say the older Zurg holds up better than what we got in Lightyear. There's nothing wrong with having a villain who's evil for the sake of evil as long as they work.
Funny enough in Toy Story 2 they make a joke about Zurg being His father, yes I know it was a joke because it was a star Wars reference, but they could have made it work, they could have made it so we see how buzz's father becomes Zurg I feel like that would have been not only awesome for the hardcore Disney fans that remember that scene, but also the twist villain is more of a twist for those who never seen/forgot about the second movie. That's just my two cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ernesto never felt like a twist villain to me, maybe because I knew first glance that he was a pos. I think Coco has a twist but not a twist villain (it was pretty obvious but it's a nice kind of obvious). Waternoose, on the other hand, is thr perfect twist villain to me. I felt just as betrayed as Sully when shit went down.
Also the parts in Incredibles 2 that are looked back upon fondly and that i see mentioned even now are the parts where Bob has to be the stay at home parent while his wife goes off to be a hero again. I think that says something about the movie itself when the super heroing is less interesting than the dad trying to be a stay at home parent and learning as he goes.
The thing I like about Auto as a villain is that it's a villain for the same reason that other robots, like Eve or Moto, who could have been villains, end up being heroes. Auto can't overcome the directive. It's not its fault it's a villain, it's just carrying out what it's supposed to do. It shows us another layer of how we actually caused this problem, but it also makes Auto sympathetic, to a degree. We feel good when the captain takes control, but we also feel a little sorry for what is essentially Auto's "death," all because Auto was doing its job and following what we told it to do. We built this machine and its code and now we have to destroy it because we became too complacent. It begs the question of who the real villain is, which of course is the whole point of the film.
8:42 “Where as other toys like Sputnik took off . . .” My man Sputnik wasn’t a toy, it was a Soviet satellite. When Stinky Pete says “Sputnik” in response to what Woody asked, he’s referring to the beginning of the Space Race.
The reason why Ernesto worked is because He isn't obvious, yeah he is full of himself but that's expected by his high status and it also fits with the plot organically as He comes out as nothing but a fraud who stole someone's reputation which is very accurate to the music industry
Ernesto basically won in Coco. Yeah, at the end of the film, he gets defeated and forgotten, but still, he not only achieved his goal, but it lasted for decades, even after his “tragic” death.
@@AnaandVerity1259he did win, but the ending undoes his victory. his goal was to be remembered forever, which is thwarted by his legacy being tarnished
GREAT ALDONE PIXAR BEST TWIST VILLAINS
i read that as "encanto" and got really confused
Because at the beginning, Miguel sees him as an idol he admires but then later on, he sees him as someone villainous. Just like the music industry, you don't know what happens behind the scenes until you've seen it yourself
Because they’re not just evil for the sake of being evil.
Ernesto’s ambition and desire for success morphed him into a twisted and crazed egomaniac who couldn’t even value his family, home, or the life and happiness of his best friend.
Muntz was a gifted explorer that was shamed for his beliefs and instead of moving on, let his own obsession and crazed delusions of being redeemed rob him of living his life for anything but that.
And Waternoose’s company was in his family as he states for generations. It’s not just a company to him. It’s a business of his family’s hard work. And it was so important to him that it caused him to resort to kidnapping and murdering children to prevent it from going out of business.
They all feel like real and believable characters with flaws, weaknesses and relatability.
that last one kinda fnaf tbh
Murdered? I didn’t think Pixar could get so dark…. Outside of Incredibles of course.
@@chewwyberries lol
I understand liking Muntz as a character, but as a villain he's pretty underwhelming and tacked on. He becomes an antagonist just because Russle named the bird, causing Muntz to think they're after the bird. Seriously? That's such an ancillary part of the plot. Carl went to Paradise Falls for a completely different reason. Why is the plot getting hung up on this damn bird?
I don't think any of Disney/Pixar's twist villains are "evil for the sake of being evil" (well except for maybe Hans) but what sets the good twist villains apart from the bad ones is the build up towards the reveal, the reveal itself, and how they act once we know they're evil (and we the audience getting to see their true selves for more than like, the four minutes someone like Bellwether got).
A great twist villain makes you ask 'how did i miss that?'
A bad twist villain makes you ask 'really? You sure?
You could say that about literally anything and because you wanted a quote that sounded good, you didn't realize how massively retarded it sounds.
Great twist: Ernesto de la Cruz. Shocking, but makes sense after a rewatch.
Terrible twist: Hans. A villain reveal so nonsensical that he's the butt of the sequel's jokes.
My very thought with Lightyear. I had such high hopes for Zurg.
@@davidw7531Older Buzz Zurg would've worked if they didnt show him from the movie but hinted via after credits big reveal then going through a trilogy where Zurg truly becomes his nemesis only to be revealed in the third or fourth installment as him but older--which could also give the "Buzz, I'm your father" meme hinted at Toy Story--father, not in a biological sense, but rather Zurg was creating a chain of events to butterfly effect the younger Buzz into becoming a person that can fulfill his goal/s, goal/s which was/were firmly opposed to the current Buzz protagonist due to the actions he(Zurg) put him(Lightyear) through. one could also play around themes regarding a chicken-&-egg dilemma regarding decisions & identity.
@@flickcentergaming680I always hated how much they brought him up in Frozen II.
When they make such a big deal about this character that isn’t in the movie I think it’s logical to assume it’s foreshadowing him making a return of some kind, but nope. They’re just messing with him for the hell of it. Do they really think they’re clever? Because Hans was not that interesting of a character to begin with, let alone a villain.
Another reason that Waternoose worked so well was because of the relationship he had with Mike and Sulley. He was their boss, but he also seemed like a friend. His attitude made him seem like he would be a hero, or at least help them out, and he was the biggest back stabber. But! He also hated that he felt he needed to be. His attitude never changed from his reveal, and I think disney has lost sight of this, and forced Pixar into a corner because of it.
We also had eyes totally on Randall up to that point, with no sign that anyone else was working with him or had put him up to it. Waternoose and De La Cruz were probably the twist villains that I never saw coming at all.
What makes Waternoose interesting as well is how he seems to regret his actions but sees them as necessary. I firmly remember the line after banishing Mike and Sully, he's talking to Randall. "I never should have let you talk me into this. It was because of you I had to banish my top scarers!" and "Sullivan was TWICE the scarer you'll ever be!"
Also he doesn’t take everything Randall had. Randall isn’t just someone work for Waternoose. They are partners in crime.
@@phousefilmsik y Randall wanted that revenge after the the scare games Randall Boggs got jealous of Sulley and Randall almost killed Sulley till Mike saved his life and banished Randall for being jealous
Didn't he yell at Randall over it too?
"Because of you I lost my top scarer!"
He clearly hated that he had to banish them for knowing too much, and he seemed to be having second thoughts until he was backed into an emotional state
Twist villains are really fun to me, though the twist has to make sense, not simply provide shock factor. I wouldn't mind Disney and Pixar making more twist villains in the future.
If they can get them right again
@@silashurd3597 I see no reason why not. Every film has a new writer, and I'm sure (or I hope) they pay attention to fan feedback.
@@OpticalSorcerer you’re right. I get that
What we really need is more villains like Sindrom or Hopper. I miss those times when you knew who the villain was from the start and you get to see more scenes of them in action.
At least Dreamworks always have done that
@@NL-X To be fair, it took a while for Syndrome to show up, and while not technically a "twist" villain in its typical use, he was still a surprise. I kinda wanted Disney to do that for Yokai, giving us more screentime to enjoy his danger. I think the manga adaptation featured his cold personality a bit more.
I think the best Disney twist villain ever made is from Wreck-it ralph.
They told you why Ralph cant jump game by giving an example. They told you what a unimportant character called Turbo did a few years ago and the consequences of his actions.
From the beginning King Candy never acted nice to Phenelope and you dont see him as a good person. you know something is up but dont have any evidence.
And then the twist happens. King Candy turns into a scary maniac and you already know Turbo's background.... It's not a twist to move on the plot or increase its run time. its just tells you the true Nature of King Candy with a true background twist.
THAT is a good Disney twist.
King Candy was a pretty good twist villain, in all honesty. I sorta guessed partway because of Turbo and King Candy's voices sounding similar. However, there were a lot of great hints to him being a villain before. His immediately trying to say his castle is salmon and not pink before changing the subject is trying to hide the fact that he stole the castle from Vanellope(the castle matches her princess dress). His reasoning for blocking Vanellope from playing seems to be altruistic, but his ability to go into the code and how overpowered King Candy is compared to the rest is shown from how many powers are connected to him. It was a way better villain twist than Hans(I will die saying he was never evil until Disney decided he was at the last second. None of the scenes leading up to his "twist"gave any indication he was bad!)
Watching Wreck-It-Ralph with my little sister, I was gobsmacked when he started glitching. I didn't see that coming and the scene was done so well!
I also like too how Turbo influences how the other video game characters viewed Ralph. That despite being the villain of his own game, they thought thats who he was as a person until they saw him stand up to what was revealed to be Turbo
To be fair, it’s not so much of a twist villain/antagonist but a villain/antagonist with a twist. Still, the twist doesn’t change Candy/Turbo’s personality or motivation to the point of self-sabotage, so that’s points in its favor.
The best twist villains are the ones where once the twist is revealed, you're like "OHH! I Should have known!" or "Oh crap now everything makes sense!" If the twist villain makes you go "what? Really?" then it's _not_ a good twist villain.
I feel like ernesto really did believe that Miguel was his grandson at some point, as a famous musician, he probably had a lot of ladies on his disposal because of his fame, so to think that one of them got pregnant and had a family isn't too hard to believe.
I don’t think it was one woman, but probably many women, which just borders on Fringe Horror if you think much on it.
wow! what a jerk!
I hate that guy even more, that's fantastic
Yeah, didn't Miguel show Ernesto the picture of his great-great-grandmother, great-grandmother, and great-great-grandfather(with face torn off) whom was wearing the mariachi suit, which was a matching suit to Ernesto's at the time? He could have easily thought "That was my suit, I apparently had that picture taken with that woman and girl. I guess that was my girl."
@@CatoNovuslol, completely forgot about his best friend’s wife who probably met. He even meets Imelda and goes, “do I… know you?”
@@MikaelaKMajorHistorystraight narcissism 😭😭
Syndrome along with Tighten are the best commentary on entitlement I have ever seen, they only try to see their side while ignoring the other's perspective, making them narcissistic and very immature
Tighten is the perfect representation of incels, while Syndrome is the perfect representation of extreme fanboys because of that.
@@OklahomaBoomerYeah but both represent entitlement and narcissism
yes finally someone compares Hal Stewart to Syndrome
Self-entitlement. You're looking for the term self-entitlement. Which means that the person isn't actually entitled to something, they just think they are.
If you're using entitled/entitlement to mean self-entitled/self-entitlement you're basically saying entitled/entitlement to mean not-entitled/no entitlement. Which looks particularly bad because you're trying to look down on people while showing you can't criticise them properly.
Yes I know loads of people do this, it's what makes it bloody annoying.
@@OklahomaBoomerTitan is so creepy and terrifying it's amazing
Honestly, making zurg buzz’s father who went absolutely nuts after buzz’s disappearance (that leads to the main plot of the film) would be a big shocker, but no, we went with the worst time paradox imaginable
I feel like the idea of the villain being an older and far more jaded instance of the protagonist might work, but it would have to be done very carefully.
In Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, Zurg claims to be Buzz’s father to catch him off guard and immediately reveals he’s lying “psyche, made you look you dimwit”
@@matityaloran9157 That's... That's even more evil, and I like that!
@@LloydTheZephyrian Yeah. I loved that about Buzz Lightyear of Star Command’s Zurg.
@@LloydTheZephyrianfrom your comment I would recommend Predestination, if you haven’t already seen it
I’d like to add some points for Ernesto that make him a great twist villain. A good twist makes you realize all the little clues with new context and a new view. You mostly notice these bits on a second viewing, knowing the twist.
When Miguel gets to the party Ernesto has no idea he has a grandson, while we know Miguel’s great great grandfather left a daughter with Mama Emelda, so Ernesto assumes Miguel is an estranged descendent from possibly a one night stand. Ernesto is happy to feed off the fame Miguel has of being the living boy in the Land of the Dead, and getting more points to him by association, “Have you met MY Grandson, the living boy?” Thirdly, when Ernesto is about to give Miguel his blessing, right before the reveal, the marigold petal doesn’t start glowing when it should have
Bringing up cars 2 makes me realise that it being Mater to crack the code of who the baddy was makes perfect sense and is a great payoff simply because he's a towtruck, one who'd be very familiar with breakdowns, maintenence, and other such stuff because thats just his field of work.
I don’t know why people didn’t like Cars 2. I liked it a lot better than the original.
@@MonarchEASI like it because it actually has an interesting plot, and they let Mater show off his skills. Sure, the jokes can fall flat at times, but the overall plot is great. It's the same reason why I like the Planes movies (that and I can relate HARD to Dusty)
@@MonarchEASit's not that people didn't like Cars 2 as a movie, it's that people didn't like Cars 2 as a sequel.
Cars 2 has all attributes of what would be a spin-off from the franchise. The main character isn't McQueen, the plot isn't focused on racing(but ties in close to it), it's a spy film, something different from the racing stuff. Well, all that AND the sheer ignorant character of Finn, given how clever he was. You cannot be super smart, super sly, and go that long with such a misconception no matter how much you say to yourself "that isn't him being stupid, just smart".
Plus, Cars 2 was a commercial success. It's the reviews where all these things pull it down.
@@MonarchEAS it would have worled if it was it's separae thing; it does NOT work as a Cars sequel
@@MonarchEAS Probably because it took the issues of the original, which mostly amount to the whole "sentient cars" thing being irrelevant despite being the premise of the universe as a whole, and then said "Hey, instead of being about a hotshot racer learning humility in a small town on the side of route who-cares, let's do a spy movie!" It sorta jumps the shark, is the problem, yet ironically it's an element of the "sentient cars" idea that makes Mater figuring out who the real big bad is possible.
Syndrome is more like Chekhov's Gun, something established in one scene, will payoff in another scene. It was established that Incrediboy was a zealous fanboy of Mr. Incredible, who later became a zealous villain of Mr. Incredible, furthermore, Buddy was also established to be painfully adolescent, yet engineering prodigy, as he remained bitter and spiteful for Supers, he used his engineering prowess to build superweapons. Syndrome was basically a serial killer, it was also established he was a stalker, he managed to track down Mr. Incredible in the open scenes of the film, this would later transpire to his ability to single out superheroes, to test out his weapons before murdering the superhero, this is what makes Syndrome the most wicked villain Pixar ever had, he racked up a significant bodycount, but in the end, Buddy was his own worst enemy, his genius turned against his favour, as the inventions turned against its creator, poetic justice summarised.
Honestly the Chekhov's Gun in that movie was Edna's rant on why she doesn't do capes on her suits: it causes death. How does Syndrome die in the end of the movie? The exact same way as Strato Girl.
In more than one way(the Omnidroid first off and then his big jet sucking him in by the cape.)
@@FrahdChikunis Edna’s no capes rant a Chekhov’s gun or foreshadowing? Genuine question
@@Chaygerbomb chekhovs gun would be something that was established early and becoming relevant later while foreshadowing is a subtle hint of what comes next. since the "no capes" rant was an incident and not a plot device, i think it leans more towards foreshadowing
Oh he wasn't tracking Mr. incredible, He was tracking Frozone.
Not only does Monsters Inc. have a great twist villain, it also has a great twist hero (Roz).
Roz isn't a good twist hero. Cinemasins pointed out the flaw with Roz motivations
@@nonamepasserbya6658well cinemasins sucks so
@@wolfgalaxy9086do you.....understand satire if you call CinemaSins of all people satire?
*cue Jeremy's fake-ass laugh
@@wolfgalaxy9086 CinemaSins has also said that their videos are meant to be actual criticisms of movies, they are just inconsistent as fuck.
Something else about cinemaSins!!!
I think another thing that makes Ernesto work is that he is already a bad person.
If Ernesto is his grandfather then that means he abandoned his family and left them with nothing. He got rich and famous while Imelda had to take care of Coco and then Elena all by herself.
You go into the movie knowing that this is a bad man and at the very least Hector would be revealed to be the jealous partner who felt he was snubbed by Ernesto.
So when it’s revealed that it was Hector you start feeling bad, he wants to cross the bridge, he wants to see his family but it’s too late.
Simple: they’re fleshed out, they’re threats to the heroes, and although there is foreshadowing, the twist usually has an element of surprise. Most of the flaws with Disney twist villains is that they’re missing one or more of these crucial details, while (most of) the Pixar twists have all of these factors.
Oh, and they’re also entertaining and smart, which is,,,something you should expect with all villains?
That’s just my take on it, though. Great video!
This made me think about how Ernesto applies for a person who lied so much that he even believes himself, or more so that he forgot the truth. That scene where he’s reminded of what he did to his “best friend” just to keep being successful, made me think that maybe that wasn’t something he even remember, not in a day by day type, like literally took him out of guard
The most shameless act I’ve ever seen, and that’s why impacted me so much, ‘cause it wasn’t much about him being great or bad, composer or singer, good or evil, but him showing that shameless attitude by not even caring about what he did, forgetting about it and also showing no sign of regret, maybe in the past was it, but not for the afterlife-time
He made so furious for that realistic attitude, like everyone said: there’s people like that
I think it might be telling that his alebrijes are chihuahuas, signifying he is really a very small man with a big ego.
What I love about Syndrome, and this also plays into twist villains, is hes still a giddy fanboy even as a supervillain. Case in point:
"Tricking the probe by hiding under the bones of another super? Oh man, Im still geeking out about it! Then you had to go and ruin the ride! I mean Mr. Incredible calling for help?? LAME!"
Hes judging Mr. Incredible's actions like a new comic book or a TV show episode.
He may be a villain whos renounced his idolization, but hes still a geek. Meanwhile you have twist villains like Bellwether who go from meek and awkward and stammering to confident and ruthless and monologuing. As if switching personalities, and its not satisfying. If youre gonna have a twist villain, keep their personality the same for gods sake. Charles Muntz is a fine exception because he was being quite cordial with Carl and entertaining him like a good host, but as soon as he realizes Carl knows something about the bird, that caused a trigger which set him off. So Muntz is a reasonable exception to that rule
It fits with his backstory perfectly. He literally said that he wasn't going to return to civilization until he captured the bird alive. His desire to capture the bird had gotten so intense that he was willing to kill a child just so they wouldn't be in his way.
I’m so mad about Evelyn’s villainy cause it could’ve worked as a good enough story. Her dad could have just been shot before the supers were forced to go underground which could be one of the leading reasons why they had to be banned. After all they failed at saving an advocate for them with a direct line, why should we trust them with simple, everyday people who don’t come with the extra perks and privileges
Tbh screenslaver should've have gotten more potential, should've not been Evelyn, screenslaver could've been his own villain, and now that I think about it, I wish Screenslaver had better villain story ngl he's my favorite villian and he kinda was wasted 😭
@@flameofdestruction271
Would have been way better if Screenslaver was his own character, but working together with Evelyn as behind-the-scenes partners. Screenslaver does the field work while Evelyn does the PR so that they both always win no matter the outcome.
That sounds like stupid idea I’m happy you weren’t a writer for Incredibles 2.
@@flameofdestruction271Nope
Lotso is one of my all time favorites but for awhile I couldn’t figure out why. The more I think about it, maybe it’s because he’s not just a great manipulator and his ease for playing the friendly almost “maternal” role to the other toys at the daycare. We KNOW from that scene with buzz getting caught that he’s aware of everything going on and he’s got a big role in it, and they make his cruelty obvious once buzz refuses his offer.
But his villainy doesn’t REALLY come from his need to stay at the top as much imo. The REAL evil in him is how much he HATES himself and he wants everyone else to feel the same about themselves. Daisy was his whole world and to have that taken away and see only himself be replaced, in his mind that was like being told “you’re expendable you can be traded at any point. But the others (big baby and chuckles) she couldn’t bare to replace them they were SPECIAL.” That’s why he lied about all of them being replaced even chuckles who saw the truth too. It’s why he says “she’s a Barbie doll ken there’s a hundred million just like her” “we’re all just trash getting ready to be thrown away” did you get that? “WE’RE” not “you” he’s PROJECTING all his insecurities about himself into everything he does at the daycare so he can feel like he’s not the only useless and replaceable garbage he sees himself as.
But yet, he’s always in the butterfly room with the gentle kids. Why doesn’t he let himself get beat up in the caterpillar room if he’s so garbage? Because deep down, even if a part of him hates her, he still LOVES Daisy and wants to be wanted by kids. Even that is his own way of denying what he really wants and NEEDS; love from a kid, a kid like Daisy who wasn’t “replacing” him, she was trying to keep him with her because she couldn’t STAND being without lotso at all, not the other way around.
That honestly makes me cry because despite how horrible he is, to know ALL of his horrible deeds are basically his way of making others feel the same so he can look in the mirror at himself and know he’s not the only worthless toy too just BREAKS me. It’s so personal and deep its far beyond “doing what has to be done” or simple “selfishness” it’s pure PAIN.
The fact that Cars 2 had a well written twist villain and Incredibles 2 didn’t sends shockwaves. Seriously, give Cars 2 some credit!
Yeah I’m tired of people shitting on Cars 2. It really wasn’t that bad of a movie. Maybe a spy plot isn’t your thing or it wasn’t what you expected from a Cars movie, but I thought it was great. I loved it as a kid.
@@MonarchEAS Agreed. And besides, throwing everything away for the sake of money is a realistic plot/twist because that literally happens in real life.
@@watermelongaming3698 Yeah it does happen in real life all the time.
Personally, I would change the movie to make the twist involve Fillmore (the hippy car) distrusting Axelrod. Have foreshadow the twist more by having Filmore be immediately distrusting of Axelrod instead of it being long after the twist. Show that there are other real fuel alternatives that Axcelrod is trying to defame, like the organic fuel that Filmore made.
7:50 It is a realistic plot, just look at what oil companies are trying to do to stop green energy (just replace terrorism with massive PR campaigns)
Yeah... the bell did not cause Ernesto's second death (although he probably wishes it did).
As long as Hector is famous for his music, so too will Ernesto be infamous for stealing it. And since being forgotten is the only thing that can cause second death, he will be trapped under that bell for eternity.
So in short, Ernesto got a fate worse than (second) death.
It is even possible for someone who is already dead in the Coco universe to die again?
(The death that comes from being forgotten doesn't count)
@@summermelody7942 No, Hector proved that when he jumped off Freida's balcony earlier in the movie
I doubt that bell was just there for decoration. Eventually they’d repair it and free Ernesto. Living the rest of his afterlife in exile
As well, he murdered for fame and the love of the people of the world and he'll be hated for all time for it.
@@phousefilmsyep he’s hated by the living and the dead
There’s also a fun little easter egg with Charles Muntz in particular. For any keen-eyed Disney historians, they might recognize the play on words with his name being based on the producer Charles Mintz, Walt’s former boss at Universal. He was a rather greedy person that, once Oswald the Lucky Rabbit turned out to be a success, hired away all of Walt’s team (except his good friend Ub Iwerks) behind his back and forced Walt to either accept new terms with less pay or quit, leading to the house of mouse you all know. Given the way Muntz bites the dust at the end of UP, you can tell how they still view the guy. 😂
I think it would have been interesting if someone confronted Evelyn after the twist about how stupid her plans are and how her actions doesn't fit her motives, introducing the fact that some bad people would grab on the vaguest reasoning to justify their bad actions.
Those kind of twist villains are great, some fit in into the good guy role and their betrayal is perfect.
Some aren't great but I really like the old Pixar this way.
Old Pixar was so damn good they were making great movie after great movie, now I feel like they hit the fam mate
Another reason Zerg doesn't work as an older Buzz is because of a scene in Toy Story 2 where Zerg confesses that he's Buzz's *father*
That was solely for the purpose of spoofing the iconic Darth Vader line “I was your father.” Zurg does it again in the animated series, but then basically tells Buzz “Gotcha!” as his claim was a way to distract him so he could gain the upper hand in battle. It was never intended to be confirmation.
@@hunterolaughlin
Even if that was true, it is still canon because it happened in the actual movie rather than the bloopers
@@summermelody7942 Well, the canon of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command begs to DIFFER.
@@hunterolaughlin didnt Pixar say that the movie the Buzz in Toy Story was based off of was Lightyear? All 3 Zurg stories contradict themselves.
@@Elipson52008 No, Angus MacLane said the Buzz is based on the in-universe animated spinoff of the film Buzz Lightyear of Star Command.
I don’t think of auto as a twist villain. He was just following the orders of the ceo of BnL who outranked everyone on the axiom. No one outranked the ceo so no one could give him new orders
Yeah theres a bit of a grey area with robot characters like Auto. He was really just doing what he was told to do but he still fits into that antagonist character role since he apposes the protagonist’s goals albeit with no emotional incentive. You could maybe argue the true villain was the Ceo giving him those orders in the first place though
He’s also a good parallel for Wall-e because he acts of his own accord almost and he can love and has autonomy unlike Auto who is well, automatically acting on commands which means he also archetypically apposes the protagonist as well!
He's actually a good example of why even "Safe" AI can be very dangerous if it's only corregibly safe. I cite him as an example on everything from explaining Robots in Fiction to explaining how Omori should be characterized. One of my favourites
Another trait of Auto's... he takes his orders to the furthest logical extreme. The Axiom was meant to only be in space for 7 years. B&L thought Earth would be habitable again after that time. When it wasn't, order A1-13 simply said _"do not return to Earth"._ More specifically, the command was _"do not return YET",_ as the Axiom continued sending Eve probes to confirm if/when Earth becomes habitable again.
Auto incorrectly assumed his order was _"do not return under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, EVER"_ even after the Eve proves that Earth can sustain life. He is an example of AI becoming stupid because it uses "logic" incorrectly and cannot make inferences based on changing circumstances.
@@gabrote42 hm, never had that idea with omori. Makes sense now that I think about it though
@@laziwastaken Glad you think so! I researched a good analogy because I was taking too many lines to describe how he should be characterized when criticizing fanfic (had him become very diplomatic all of a sudden), and I found his behaviour during both the timeloop and the last segment of the game to be very analogous to AUTO, and his thought process, authority calculations and lack of common sense as well.
I mean...
Evelyn Deaver didn't just want superheroes to be illegal.
She wanted them to be actively villainized. To be hunted.
So. Her plan was to get them close to being legalized and then frame them for a tragedy, making them even MORE stigmatized than they already were.
The law was working, but in her eyes, she needed it to be more severe.
That was her motive.
I think Evelyn could still work as a twist villain (or just a villain) if she wasn't as involved.
For example, Winston could say, "My sister has become somewhat of a recluse after our parents passed," or whatever.
She could still work with Winston but she would be more in the backlines being the screenslaver on the side to try and foil his plans. To the audience, we would expect her to be the villain. But to heroes it comes as a surprise.
Still pretty obvious but I think it works pretty well.
I also would have taken her more seriously if her big reason for hating heroes wasn't so incredibly dumb. The writers really gave a bad and, imo, unbelievable, backstory as her motivation to become a villain. Her dad was a moron and chose to go for a phone instead of the saferoom. And even if he reached the phone first...how would he have called a super and had one arrive to help before he got shot anyway? Just so dumb.
@@pcdeltalink036 Agreed. They really didn't think it through
"I don't want to survive, I want to live"
Damn, captain! That's deep!
I thought Evelyn was never a bad twist outside of how telegraphed her and the bad backstory. Evelyns plan was to weaponize the public fear of retribution to push them back deeper into the shadows after her plan
Also Lightyear was doomed the moment the director said he hated star command
All they had to do was make Tim Allen play Buzz again, or at least get a sound alike like Patrick Warburton.
But no! They had to make it Chris Evans who doesn’t suit the character.
evelyn would've worked better as a twist villain if the plot wasn't quite so poorly plotted out
i think even a simple line like "It's not enough for you to be illegal, I want the world to hate you into extinction, the people who you claim to protect being your executioner"
Wait, the director actually said that he hated Star Command?!
That is so pathetically stupid!😡
Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard!😡
@@andreasmeelie1889 Pixar as a whole tried to bury Star Command, that's why the show and movie never aired again outside the original run.
The main reason to me the up twist works is because Charles is initially portrayed as a larger than life underdog folk hero. Like he seems like this incredible man and. Your first impression is as an incredible and brave explorer. And when you do meet him he gives off the same feelings at first until the twist itself. The twist feels like if you met john Bunyan and he turned out to be a serial killer who had hundreds of victims.
Personally I liked Axelrod. He wasn't an obvious twist villain and every plot point that led to it fits so well into the reveal. For example, Mater said at the beginning of the film he never leaks oil, then at the party Axelrod leaks and blames Mater due to not knowing him, and given how easily Mater is to believe things he didn't second guess himself along with the fact that Axelrod claimed to have become an electric car which doesn't use oil. But then when Mater realized the bomb was attached with Whitworth Bolts and remembered how the Mastermind's engine was British and used the SAME BOLTS, he finally was able to rethink about that moment of the party and realized the truth. That's hinting on such an early on level and I loved it so much. Cars 2 is super overhated.
COMPLETELY agree! Sure, could Cars 2 been it’s own movie and not part of the “history” in the trilogy….or rewritten with totally different characters with the same plot…yes. But, when you put that behind it, you begin to realize how genius that movie really was.
Who cares if it doesn’t “compliment” the story of Lightning McQueen’s coming of age story. It truly shows how dependable Mater can be; despite his “dumb” persona!
Screw what most people say, I love Cars2, it's an awesome movie, and the freakin CAR POPE is in it, how can someone hate this movie?
that doesn’t make any sense and you’re overthinking it. If Axlerod is an electric car why does he even leak oil? If he wanted to get rich, why not just make the alternative fuel and profit off of that instead of purposefully sabotaging the cars that use it and causing a bunch of chaos using technology that would realistically cost him millions of dollars all just to profit off of oil that was becoming outdated? It would’ve made more sense for the german car to be the main villian and Axlerod to be an innocent victim, they could’ve used any other british car as the lemon boss instead of Axlerod.
@@nitsuareldas1386 he had car buddies that were older and parts were not being made for them anymore
So to show the world newer cars are not the future he sabotaged it
So older gen cars and parts would fall more into favor again or something like that
So axel took the lead on alernative fuel and had it sabotaged so the future of alt fuel is not happening
I think that was the plan?
Has been years since i had seen it
@@nicktb1999 It was mentioned later in the film that the alternative fuel that Axelrod developed for the race was actually just regular gasoline that was tampered in order to react with the EMP camera.
And basically the whole convoluted plot was done in order to raise the value and demand of regular gas in order to profit from the oil pumped from rigs that he owned in the beginning of the film.
(The funniest thing is that one of the few cars in the film that saw through the facade was Fillmore, the one who actually developed his own alternate fuel)
Fun detail i noticed: when the tomato hits Ernesto in the crowd scene, it covered his chest like a blood splatter, which was also placed over where his heart would be.
Did anyone else think with Lightyear how Zerg in Toy Story 2 said: "Buzz, I am your father" and thought of that not just as a nod to Star Wars? Just me?
A lot of people were annoyed that Zurg wasn’t Buzz’s father in Lightyear. Though Buzz Lightyear of Star Command (in the episode Stranger Invasion) established Zurg was lying when he said that.
Zurg said he was just messing with Buzz in "BLOSC". I was annoyed that Zurg wasn't an Emperor or didn't have a Death Star, since Andy's toy Buzz was already fighting against the Emperor Zurg(from the description on the back of his box)and Toy Story referenced the Death Star plans.
I honestly saw it as simply a Star Wars joke and not something to be taken as canon. But whatevs I guess.
@@pcdeltalink036 I mean, why have in the line with the planets for the superweapon in "Toy Story 1"and not use it as a reference in this one(since the toy is supposed to be based on the "Lightyear"movie Andy watched...) Even have it on "Buzzurgs"screen could have been a good reference...
@@pcdeltalink036 I understand that but it was already a cartoon within a cartoon and both of the first two Toy Story movies implied that the Buzz Lightyear franchise was essentially a parody of Star Wars.
Honestly, Pixar was great because it was actually surprising.
I mean, some trailers ruined what people would be villains("UP", I knew Muntz would be the bad guy, but not the reason)while others, I guessed they would be a twist villain("LIghtyear", I was excited until I guessed the villain would have a twist and I got annoyed when it was revealed)and Evelyn was so obviously the villain, I got annoyed.
However, the greatest twist villains of all time from them have to be Stinky Pete,Waternoose, Syndrome and Ernesto De La Cruz. I didn't see any of them coming at all. Stinky Pete seems to be soft spoken, kind and giving good advice, but its all from selfishness as he manipulates Woody into trying to make him stay, using Jesse first, his worries about Andy second and then force when Woody tries to leave, even after he invited Prospector to join Andy's family. Waternoose seemed so friendly with James, with Randall set as such an obvious bad guy, that Waternoose's desperation to save the company was ignored by me. Buddy/Incrediboy had my jaw drop when he said "I am your number one fan..." It was great because it was truly believable, seeming like a silly kid Robin type trying to be a hero and then getting shot down for having no powers(as well as being totally unprepared), only to turn against his former hero and destroy so many former heroes to become the only one, and De La Cruz....
I can't praise "Coco"and its twist enough. The hints throughout, from De La Cruz's interview of "Seizing your moment"to Hector's poisoning death being reenacted in his movie, his lack of care for the music and appearing at his rehearsals and only caring about the fame, the empty and full glass when Hector's friend Chiccaron dies the final death....it's all perfect.I was stunned when I watched the movie. I believed up to that point, Hector was just a lying conman trying to get to the real world, as we're introduced to him trying to trick his way through, while De La Cruz is handsome, brave and seemingly fully on Miguel's side. But its all a facade and he only cared himself(the biggest proof being how he made "Remember Me",a soft song for Hector's daughter a big punchy number about himself.)
Disney's twist villains are so goddamn awful by comparison. Hans was not at all believable, because it happened last second. He was SO not evil early on, they just made him bad at that moment because that was the ONLY way to do the twist.None of his actions up to that point were bad or hinted that he was evil. Professor Callahan from "Big Hero 6" was obviously the bad guy Yokai because they were leaning soooooo hard into Industrialist Alister Krei being the man in the mask.Just...Pixar, when it does a twist villain right, they do a twist villain right.
the thing with pixar twist villains is that they were so stuck in a situation that they had nothing else to do but resort to the dark side. its like they were the victims too, in a situation they couldn’t escape from. thats the best i can describe it since i find pixar twist villains to be better and more effective than the other disney twist villains
I really like up’s twist villain because it’s not a movie you’d expect to have a villain at all, so when he shows up looking all devious it gets you thinking about the possibilities
Looking back at Incredibles 2, Screenslaver was such a massive disappointment especially since how much he was teased in the trailers, especially since his whole premise would have been amazing if they went in that direction. A villain who takes control over the masses through the use of television. Instead of a massive stop-the-boat-from-crashing-into-the-city disaster, imagine a scenario where the heroes are forced to fight a bunch of mind controlled civilians who had tuned in to watch the signing of the Superhero Accord. Not only will the stakes be much higher, but the heroes will be forced to find a way to deal with the situation without injuring the mind controlled masses.
(Also, give him the power to transport himself and objects through televisions, kind of like Mirror Master in the Flash)
As for Evelyn, imagine if she was built up to be the twist villain, but it is later revealed that while she did develop the mind-control device, the Screenslaver who got his hands on it, was actually the one controlling her behind the scenes, and Evelyn hating superheroes is how she is.
Also, one of my biggest nitpicks with the film was something that wasn't addressed in the first film, when Superheroes became illegal, what happened to all of the Supervillians? We had the Underminer who originally declared war on peace and happiness in the first film, and he proceeded to rob a bank in the sequel (maybe he was declaring war on the peace and happiness of billionaire wallets). After that opening scene, besides everything that was done by Evelyn, the only other crime happened at the end of the film, and it just looked like another bank robbery getaway. One would think that in a society where Heroes are illegal, crime should be much more prevalent.
So my rough theoretical idea for Incredibles 2 would have been this: The opening still plays out just the same, but Mr. Incredible will mention that there was something off about the Underminer. Winston will later reveal that ever since the Incredibles saved the city in the first film, Supervillains have been showing up much more frequently and he wants to take this as an opportunity for Heroes to get back in the public's favor. The film will play out similarly with the occasional villain-of-the-week trying to thwart Elastigirl during the train and helicopter scene where is later revealed that the Screenslaver was controlling the other villains in order for public perception for heroes rise again, so that during the signing of the Superhero Accord, there would be thousands of people perfectly positioned in anticipation in front of a television, perfect targets for his hoard of spider-crab-goggles (yes, the goggles can now crawl around) to take over. (Maybe the Screenslaver was Evelyn's classmate or something which is why he knew about the mind-control tech in the first place and why he was able to control Evelyn in this theoretical scenario). The climax of the film would have the Incredibles and any other available heroes fight against the mind controlled heroes, villains and civilians and stop Screenslaver's plan (how that happens I leave that up to your imagination)
The more I think about the details of this film and what it could have been, the more my brain hurts, and makes anything else that people come up with sound better in comparison to what we finally got...
Dude, that honestly sounds fantastic. If there was ever a chance to rewrite and remake a movie, I hope to God someone hires you, because that rewrite? Phenomenal!
That sounds brilliant - that would really play on what makes a hero and whether heroes are born or made. Or maybe how heroes either seek notoriety or simply helping others
That's fucking brilliant. Probably would've been my favorite movie.
Is it bad I like Cars 2? It’s not deep at all, some things don’t make sense at all, but it’s dumb fun and it’s so entertaining 😅
Not at all.
Cars 2 is one of my favorite movies ever, these new movies are making me miss those days when you'd get so excited about the new pixar movie...
Cars 2 is a fun movie but it should have been a spinoff rather than direct sequel
@@gabutman6144 yeah probably it’s more about Mater so should’ve probably been called something like “Cars: Mater’s Adventure” or something. If it wasn’t marketed as a sequel I think the general perception of it wouldn’t be as bad.
Bill Cipher's line "It's funny how dumb you are" perfectly sums up Cars 2.
In short, a twist villain only works when 1. The twist is not contrived due to plot and the morals of the villain stay consistent. 2. The plan itself follows a logical 1+1=2(f*ck Hans). Abd 3. The twist is either himted at fir the audiences benifit, or is a genuine reveal that isn't easily guessed by those in elementary school.
Take notes Disney.
That's one of the very few things I didn't like about Zootopia, Bellwether being the villain came out of nowhere, or at least that's how I saw it. Also, f*ck Hans.
Ernesto is my favorite twist villain because not only does it work in the context of the film but the film also provides clues that foreshadow the twist without spoiling it.
The amount of analysis you can fit into so little time is absolutely incredible. Great video!
an honorable mention should be john silver from treasure planet because he was an amazing villain, its just sad that movie doesn't get the recognition it deserves
John Silver shouldn't count as a villain but rather as a temporary antagonist.
The way I kind of assume Evelyns plan worked was that she didn't just want heroes to stay underground, she wanted to have them banned permanently. The first movie shows them being banned for recklessness but ends with people realizing they need them again. So she builds up Elastagirl to get a bunch of world leaders in one place, brings in new potential heroes, then uses them to attack the leaders so that Heroes will be banned permanently. Since this would take down what's left of the classic heroes (Elastagirl, Frozone, Mr. Incredible) but also ruin the perception of potential new heroes (Violet, Dash, Void, etc.)
Looking at it that way it makes sense why she needs to build heroes up to make them fall harder, but they don't explain this well and it honeslty would have just been better if both Devers just invented Screenslaver to give the heroes someone to fight.
They could have even done the theory that Syndrome was a partner of theirs. Having him as the potential new hero and when that failed turning back to the old heroes who were already cemented and stong enough to bring the new villains down. Then your epic climax would have been the classics finding out and them having to do mind control thing to try and discredit them. The kids have to rally the newbie hereos to their side and you can really show off how good the original's were and how far the newbies have to come. Then even as their taken away the Devers still gto there wish, the heroes are back.
A recurring pattern I'm starting to see with many of these twist villains is that their villainy was a consequence of the protagonist getting in their way, rather than some sinister plan they'd been cooking up from the beginning (with exceptions of course, I see you Syndrome). It really gives the impression that, had things worked out differently, they might not have had to be defeated in the first place.
It’s ok to have plots with no villains (Inside Out did it perfectly), but a good villain can make a big difference. I don’t agree that the Coco villain twist really worked because it was too telegraphed and not well thought out, but movies like Monsters, Inc worked great because they set up a great if straightforward villain with Randall, only to reveal that his scheme ran deeper than realized when the boss also turns out to be in on it. It raised the stakes organically because you thought you already saw the limits of the villain plot, but it was just the surface.
I don’t think just having a twist villain makes Pixar movies good, but they shouldn’t be afraid to make clear bad guys a thing. But they also need to up their writing quality, since that has really been the dagger in their side with their last batch of releases.
Inside Out worked well without a villain because A. The setting didn’t really require it, being inside the mind of a 12-year old, and B. Joy was the antagonist of the story in her own way. She does everything to try and make Riley happy and she loathes the idea of Sadness even being near the console because “Riley will be sad”. It’s the movie’s equivalent of trying to bury your emotions and pretend you’re happy, which never works. The true message was learning that sometimes being sad is necessary to be emotionally healthy, and Joy learning that Sadness was necessary for letting others know Riley was in distress.
@@tedioussugar384As a wise teacher once told me:
"One cannot experience Joy without having an encounter with Sadness."
The point of Evelin’s and Axelrod’s plans is the concept of “the bigger they are, the harder they fall”. They intentionally build up the reputation of supers and alternative fuel so that when that comes crashing down, the impact is much greater. It makes it so there is so much distrust with the concept that people like Evelin’s brother and Lightning, who would normally advocate for supers and alternative fuels, won’t speak up. These plans only failed because someone saw through the ruse and exposed it.
What really bothers me about Zurg in the Lightyear movie, is the fact he was in the right.
What he wanted was objectively correct. He wanted to prevent his people from being stranded on a hellscape of a planet.
I looking back I can kind of see why Ernesto would be the villain, because maybe I’m just reading too much into this, but I don’t think Disney/Pixar wouldn’t have someone who was such a heroic icon to the main character die in such a stupid way, unless he was meant to have a different role.
Ernesto - Ambitious
Charles - Obsessive
Waternoose - Desperate
Slight correction
Sputnik wasnt a toy. It was the name of a USSR sattelite during the space race. The USSR beat the US to space but the US beat the USSR to the moon, thus winning said race
In what Pete said, saying Sputnik was him referencing how when astronauts & cosmonauts became the new thing across the globe, interest in cowboys & the wild west basically went away near instantly
Video was 20 minutes but felt like an hour from how well made it was, the writing, there's no wasted breath or repeating. You sound incredibly knowledgeable and well spoken, and it's obvious how much you care
Coco made me feel bad for Hector that he was robbed which makes that more sad coco made me cry
Evelyn in the incredibles will always make me think about Oogways quote from the first Kung fu panda when he was talk to shifu “One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it.” Which is literally what happened to her everything she did allowed the supers to prove themselves to be useful to the world and therefore allow the treaty to be signed
maybe Zurg as we know him could still exist. Didn't old Buzz say he got the suit and ship and robots from the distant future? Maybe the noise the robots make isn't just a random sound. idk how many people stayed til the very very end of the credits, but I think a sequel was hinted at.
Yes this was confirmed by a pixar employee. Older buzz states that he stole the ship aka he stole it from the real zurg
I feel like the deleted scenes from WALL-E made Auto a little bit better than the other version of him we already got. Deleted scenes like Secret Files.
My ranking for Pixar twist villains:
1. Mr. Waternoose
2. Stinky Pete
3. Ernesto De La Cruz
4. Lotso
5. Charles Muntz
6. AUTO
7. Evelyn Deavor
8. Zurg/Buzz Lightyear
I never got why people felt every movie needed villains. Sometimes a person can just work through their own stuff without needing some guy to be twisting his mustache tying your dreams to the railroad tracks.
I’m glad someone else thinks this. I don’t understand where this want suddenly came from I swear before no one was talking about this but now everyone wants villains.
Basically, to make a good twist villain, the trick is to write them and their role in the story in such a way that a) the character doesn't actually change, and b) the audience doesn't see their outing as a villain coming, but then looks back at everything that happened before that point and thinks "My God! That makes sense!"
Another thing about auto is that he contrasts with the protagonists. The other robots have slowly developed human emotions which even went against their own code, but auto stayed this shallow husk of a thing throughout its existence
Also, I believe you should check out the up theory by the thorizer where he discusses how the villain is actually an imposter who was a superfan, and actually killed the real Charles, since the real one would actually be too old to be alive.
Feels like it's worth noting that the plot of Cars 2 ends up revealing the "alternative fuel" was basically just gasoline but with a special "explodes when microwaved" feature, essentially. The reason the guy couldn't use the alternative fuel was it was a scam to discredit other alternative fuel sources from day 0 of its use. If it weren't discredited, someone would've figured out it was fake all along eventually anyways. This plan is stupid, yes, but that's because it's extravagant stupid rather than because they had better options.
Pixar villains are all the same. They seem like a chill guy in the beginning until the protagonist figures out that they are more than what they seem. Then the villain then notices that the hero noticed, which in turn makes them show their true colors.
my classmates freaking CHEERED when Ernesto got crushed by the bell the second time
Movies do not really need a villain to defeat if the story is strong on it's own
But I get it , setting the writing scale to hard mode is problematic.
Videogame makers try their hardest to keep it on easy so the series can continue.
But Hollywood types tend to be high stacks gamblers , so we have a villain drought.
Waternoose actually kinda hits harder after Monsters University. During the ending, we see a news ariticle talking about how Mike and Sully are rising through the company, so Waternoose had to have known about them even before they were his top staff. He's one of the few twist villains that genuinely liked the heroes, but did what he had to in his eyes.
Thank you for this. I appreciate the positivity.
Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.
Basically: Because you actually see their personality and ambitions, and can understand why they would go full villain.
Main studio Disney twist villains don’t work because you don’t actually know what their motivations are, and their personalities do a full 180 from how they’re introduced.
Before seeing the Video i think the reason is, that Pixar have their villains have time to BE villains after the Twist
1:52. Buddy(Syndrome) was a kid who refused to listen when it mattered. And was too young to really grasp the seriousness of Superhero work. Mr. Incredible WASN'T looking in taking on a sidekick, and if he was, it wouldn't be a kid. No matter if they're inventive, or have powers of their own.
The problem with Muntz being a twist villain was it was far too obvious. The second we meet him I knew he was the villain. Mostly because...there was literally no one else in the movie by that point to even BE a villain.
She borrowed the book from him many years ago and hasn't yet returned it.
I think Incredibles 2 would have worked if Evelyn was advocating against supers and had Screenslayver as a lackey being the pizza guy from the red herring, but the goggles still controlling him like we’ve seen that it can do. Also, she’s have pizza a lot because of that.
The script sounds like me tryna fit 2000 words on an essay in highschool 💀
I was hoping that there would be an earth elemental villain in Elemental. Like some businessman who wants to ruin Fire Town because he hates how fire can burn their leaves.
Charles Muntz is a great twist villain, a man who went insane and bitter from being rejected and ridiculed by the explorers organisation. His relationship with Kevin was that of Captain Abe and Moby Dick.
So basically... in order for a twist villain to work, they have to be a well written villain with a twist... not just a twist for the sake of having a twist. Who knew right?
Reminder for those who haven't watched Toy Story 2. Zurg is Buzz's father.
Mater does get a bit of an excuse as the dude is infact, a good detective
0:31 I had a sudden click of an idea for elemntal when it should have had a villian thats goes back into the elements can't mix idea, were they actually want mix the elements to come together to become a greater force. Just the way they mix the elements comes at he cost of each's individuality, showing the bad way of mixing people together into a team.
I believe this needs additionally better worldbuilding as we don't really know in elemental what the problems are aside from the protaganists. like somehow they're first ever mixed couple when most likely there are plenty that do work, like earth and water could work really well when mixed we never were given a reason to why that didn't work BUt fire doesn't seem to have an element it doesn't destroy or break away like earth.
it would be instersting how an individual can overcomes their flaws to obtain physicall touch from someone outside their family, as while its great they would like more.
Dr. Evil: “How about NO.”
One complaint I have about elementals is why is fire so discriminated against? They are by far the weakest element, I mean they're one of the two elements that we know can be killed. (There is no confirmed way to kill an earth elemental or an air elemental) the worst they can do to an earth elemental is burn their hair and they seem to have absolutely no effect on air elementals. Also we see that water elementals can survive being evaporated but fire elementals can't survive being in contact with water. Also when water elementals boil it is over time meaning that they can potentially save themselves but when a fire elemental comes into contact with water it is instantaneous.
Just here to say I loved both of the incredible movies- and Evelyn/the screenslavor was very coooooll
Lightyear really should have just been a straight up Buck Rogers space adventure
Tldw;
Pixar's twist villains work well due to their relatability and the twist connects/fits to the story and their villainy makes sense. They're not evil for the sake of being evil.
One of my favorite twist villians was Trader Johann from the How To Train Your Dragon series. It was so out of the blue but once you go back and rewatch and think about it... it makes a ton of sense and your left there thinking "HOW DID I NEVER SEE THIS COMING?!"
Stinky Pete and Lotso are such interesting villains bc they have a similar root of rejection & fear of obsolescence that fuels their behavior, but they come to different conclusions. Stinky Pete was the least popular of all the characters in Woody’s Roundup, so he’s never experienced the joy of play or the love of a child. He’s jealous of the others bc he also wants to be loved, but he also sees his only value as a pristine collectors item bc it’s the closest he can come to feeling that love. Toy Story 2 & 3 are in a weird way, both about confronting fear of death. The breakable, replaceable nature of toys mixed with the anxiety of you or your kid growing old. With woody’s broken arm, he’s become increasingly anxious abt the idea of being thrown away-unloved or worse, destroyed. Stinky Pete has chosen a life of immortal, perfectly preserved but impersonal admiration behind glass, whereas woody is trading in literal and figurative immortality in the form of preservation & legacy for a temporal & imperfect life with Andy where he will experience genuine love. That’s why Pete’s “punishment” is fitting. When he is placed in to the backpack of the artist girl, he is subjected to a life in which he cannot detach & remain pristine forever. He will be marked, he will experience wear & tear, he will change, he will necessarily have to confront his mortality, but he will also experience genuine love.
While Pete assuages his anxieties about rejection & disposability by essentially trying to become immortal, Lotso has swung in the other direction. He was abandoned & from his perspective, replaced by Daisy so he became convinced of his own disposable nature. He thinks the relationship between toys & humans is meaningless and transferable. Therefore, the only way to glean meaning of his life is to at lease ascend a hierarchy of toys he views as equally disposable. The suffering of the toys in the caterpillar room does not matter bc he sees toys as all the same. He is envious of but also disgusted by toys who have meaningful relationships with their kid, so he relishes in chances to bring other toys down to his level and convince them they are all equally worthless. The damage done to you does not matter, my cruelty to you does not matter, bc there will be new toys tomorrow, and even tho we are all worthless, I’m now the one with the big boot and you’re not. Meanwhile, the only way to get meaning out of a relationship with a kid is for it to be in the impersonal daycare. Kids age out of daycare, so to avoid putting himself in a situation where he feels true attachment to another child only to potentially get hurt, he puts himself in a situation where the kids are equally replaceable. He still wants to be loved, but he hates himself for that want, so he does everything he can to avoid being hurt, which includes grabbing power and putting in a hierarchy where he is at the top. In order for the toys defeat Lotso, they have to get to Big Baby and to a lesser extent, Ken. Ken expressing that Andy’s Barbie is special to him, not replaceable, is thematically important. Same with Big Baby realizing that Daisy loved him the whole time. The thematic conclusion of the story is reached when Andy’s mother expresses that she wishes she could be with him at college, and Andy assured her that she will be with him, in his heart. The point is that relationships remain meaningful and treasured to the people in them, even if they are temporary, even if they change. Daisy treasured Lotso, even if he didn’t know it. Andy will always have memories of the toys even if as an adult, he no longer needs them, and the toys will always love him. Even if they have a new owner, it’s not replacement, it’s openness to a new relationship & a willingness to continue to accept love and vulnerability and change.
This is the thing that I think isn’t touched on in the video. That the villain’s motive has to cohere with the theme, and is usually a foil or extreme extension of the protagonist. Woody’s worst fears are about being disposed of, being unloved, and being replaced. That’s what the first one is about as well, that’s what buzz represented to woody at one point, too. Pete and lotso are what happens when those fears get the better of you, and twist you into someone cruel, unwilling to accept change, vulnerability, or love. Ernesto de La Cruz is a dark representation of Miguel’s dream to pursue music, the idea of pursuing a dream “no matter the cost”.
I feel like what works with Monsters Inc. is that the realization that waternoose is evil coincides with Sully’s character arc as a whole & how the world is reframed to the audience by his change in perspective. When scaring kids was framed as innocuous and fairly harmless, even a little funny, and sully was good at it, it makes sense that we would not question waternoose or his motives. However, I think waternoose’s callous disposal of Sully & his pivoting to more extreme measures to keep the company open is just a natural extension of the cruelty we realize the whole company has been founded on the whole time. The movie also challenges essentialism. Initially, Monsters are monsters, they are meant to scare & that is why the structure goes unchallenged. However, we see this is not the truth. Monsters do not have to be frightening. Boo was not afraid of Sully until he scared the simlutor, and she saw. Monsters are not doomed to be scary, they can be understood and loved. They can choose a different path, which is what we see at the end when Sully reform the company. It’s important that Sully realizes that scaring kids isn’t a fun game when he sees boo genuinely frightened. He views the scaring as "not real" until he sees her. Thematically, this movie i think speaks to parents and kids because its about being responsible for someone other than yourself and realizing your impact on others. Yes, the company hurting would probably impact the monster economy & cause an energy crisis, but there has been a better, less harmful alternative this entire time to scares and nobody ever bothered to look for altnernate sources. By the end, we see Monster Inc for what it is. This is not the trope of One Of the Good Bosses, theirs was always a company that was profit driven and fueled through exploitation & cruelty. If the first form of cruelty (scaring kids) can be justified, then anything more extreme can be justified. A more humane solution would genuinely not cross the mind of someone like waternoose. Btw, I know the fact that Monster University had a completely different framing of the scaring muddies the water of the theming, bc in that story the scaring is always framed as comedic & an aspirational job and even helps them in the climax. Which is at odds with the lesson of monsters Inc. But it’s trying to tell a different message than MI, so I don’t rly mind it.
I love what you said about a villain needing to work thematically with the film. The theme of the Incredibles is that no one can truly work alone. Bob learns this, but Syndrome doesn't and dies because of it. Coco teaches us that family bonds are important and can't be taken for granted. Ernesto is brought down by his disregard for family bonds (like trying to kill the kid he thought was his grandson).
Incredibles 2 focuses on the importance of family and working together through hard times, much like the first, so Evelyn's theme of over-reliance on supers and tech doesn't fit anywhere. There's no foils or parallels, just teo different themes. It would have worked much better if the villain was someone tired of being in their family member's shadow or feeling abandoned by a super family member because that works with the theme. Even in Zootopia, Bellweather fails to match the theme of not judging by appearances. People ignore her as a potential villain not because she's a sheep and an assistant, but because she purposely put on an act of innocence. It would have worked better if she had always been sassy and confident, but people overlooked her because she was a sheep.
Out of the villains I feel bad the most for Waternoose because he clearly doesn’t know there is another way to save his company and end the energy crisis. Mike/Sully don’t exactly mention it that it doesn’t have to be this way either, it just slips past the shock of the situation.
I imagine either easy write off there is that Waternoose could just dig his heels and refuses to change tradition even if it betters everyone’s situation given his complaints of how things aren’t like the ‘old days’. But if he’s willing to fund and create a child scream extractor he’s already eschewing it and expresses often he doesn’t like it’s methods either.
Ernesto was a little less subtle than Waternoose and Charles Muntz. Granted, all of them are from kids films, so it's works as a great reveal.
Hot topic:
If Lion King 2019 (100% cgi) is considered to be "live-action" then WALL-E (lots of real footage) is even more live-action
I really like Pixar villain
And Disney Villains
It's a shame we don't get Tham anymore because I think a good or even a great villain can give a story much to say but it has to be done right
Some of my personal favorite anime have great Villains
One piece is one that has a cast of heroes and Villains
4:36 also your forgetting the fact that the entire plot for the movie was intentionally leaked through the Lego incredibles game which kinda spoiled the entire movie it’s like if the I am your father line from Star Wars was leaked a day before the the empire strikes back was released that probably would’ve drastically decreased the impact of those words to the audience.
I will say this, and have been for a while, I can kinda see what Screen Slaver’s intentions are. Yes the law against supers exist, but that could get changed in the future like how it’s working to get changed at the time and so she, wanting them gone for good, helps them get back in the public’s good graces only to try and control them and make them seem like the only reason the heroes were trying to be good was to get back control and make them seem manipulative. This in turn would make the anti-hero law even more solidified and near permanent, allowing her goal to be achieved.
While I'll admit I enjoyed Lightyear, I can also agree the story was held back by trying to make Zurg a sympathetic villain/future Buzz. As open was I was to the idea I can say the older Zurg holds up better than what we got in Lightyear. There's nothing wrong with having a villain who's evil for the sake of evil as long as they work.
Funny enough in Toy Story 2 they make a joke about Zurg being His father, yes I know it was a joke because it was a star Wars reference, but they could have made it work, they could have made it so we see how buzz's father becomes Zurg I feel like that would have been not only awesome for the hardcore Disney fans that remember that scene, but also the twist villain is more of a twist for those who never seen/forgot about the second movie. That's just my two cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.
Ernesto never felt like a twist villain to me, maybe because I knew first glance that he was a pos. I think Coco has a twist but not a twist villain (it was pretty obvious but it's a nice kind of obvious). Waternoose, on the other hand, is thr perfect twist villain to me. I felt just as betrayed as Sully when shit went down.
Also the parts in Incredibles 2 that are looked back upon fondly and that i see mentioned even now are the parts where Bob has to be the stay at home parent while his wife goes off to be a hero again. I think that says something about the movie itself when the super heroing is less interesting than the dad trying to be a stay at home parent and learning as he goes.
When motorists sped in and out of traffic, all she could think of was those in need of a transplant.
The thing I like about Auto as a villain is that it's a villain for the same reason that other robots, like Eve or Moto, who could have been villains, end up being heroes. Auto can't overcome the directive. It's not its fault it's a villain, it's just carrying out what it's supposed to do. It shows us another layer of how we actually caused this problem, but it also makes Auto sympathetic, to a degree. We feel good when the captain takes control, but we also feel a little sorry for what is essentially Auto's "death," all because Auto was doing its job and following what we told it to do. We built this machine and its code and now we have to destroy it because we became too complacent. It begs the question of who the real villain is, which of course is the whole point of the film.
8:42 “Where as other toys like Sputnik took off . . .”
My man Sputnik wasn’t a toy, it was a Soviet satellite. When Stinky Pete says “Sputnik” in response to what Woody asked, he’s referring to the beginning of the Space Race.