Why Pixar Twist Villains Worked

[@shadeblackwolf1508]

A great twist villain makes you ask 'how did i miss that?' A bad twist villain makes you ask 'really? You sure?

[@bayardkyyako7427]

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.

[@flickcentergaming680]

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.

[@davidw7531]

My very thought with Lightyear. I had such high hopes for Zurg.

[@andrewcalebgorospe2754]

​@@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.

[@SuperbbConnor64]

@@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.

[@martijnklaassen3536]

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.

[@phousefilms]

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!)

[@Christian-ni5li]

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!

[@Spongebrain97]

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

[@alexmartinez5859]

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.

[@lasercraft32]

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.

[@nykole1963]

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.

[@phousefilms]

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.

[@cousinvinnie6222]

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!"

[@shadowclaw7210]

Also he doesn’t take everything Randall had. Randall isn’t just someone work for Waternoose. They are partners in crime.

[@benjaminthemandmsgeneral5376]

​@@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

[@tanandalynch9441]

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

[@OpticalSorcerer]

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.

[@silashurd3597]

If they can get them right again

[@OpticalSorcerer]

@@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.

[@silashurd3597]

@@OpticalSorcerer you’re right. I get that

[@NL-X]

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

[@OpticalSorcerer]

@@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.

[@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375]

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

[@AnaandVerity1259]

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.

[@charjabugman]

@@AnaandVerity1259he did win, but the ending undoes his victory. his goal was to be remembered forever, which is thwarted by his legacy being tarnished

[@brandonscott5544]

GREAT ALDONE PIXAR BEST TWIST VILLAINS

[@ilovemydog240]

i read that as "encanto" and got really confused

[@princesserika9899]

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

[@spykidtalksaboutanything4395]

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

[@LloydTheZephyrian]

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.

[@matityaloran9157]

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”

[@LloydTheZephyrian]

@@matityaloran9157 That's... That's even more evil, and I like that!

[@matityaloran9157]

@@LloydTheZephyrian Yeah. I loved that about Buzz Lightyear of Star Command’s Zurg.

[@Chaygerbomb]

@@LloydTheZephyrianfrom your comment I would recommend Predestination, if you haven’t already seen it

[@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375]

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

[@OklahomaBoomer]

Tighten is the perfect representation of incels, while Syndrome is the perfect representation of extreme fanboys because of that.

[@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375]

@@OklahomaBoomerYeah but both represent entitlement and narcissism

[@nitsuareldas1386]

yes finally someone compares Hal Stewart to Syndrome

[@J4hk2]

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.

[@justalpha9138]

​@@OklahomaBoomerTitan is so creepy and terrifying it's amazing

[@BlazingKhioneus]

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.

[@MonarchEAS]

I don’t know why people didn’t like Cars 2. I liked it a lot better than the original.

[@flickcentergaming680]

​​@@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)

[@rudrodeepchatterjee]

​​@@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.

[@danmakes2497]

​@@MonarchEAS it would have worled if it was it's separae thing; it does NOT work as a Cars sequel

[@Someloser3232]

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.

[@typo1345]

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

[@summermelody7942]

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.

[@NumberOneSpiderPlushFan]

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!

[@redheadedbandet]

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.

[@ZelinkSupporter]

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*

[@hunterolaughlin]

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.

[@summermelody7942]

@@hunterolaughlin Even if that was true, it is still canon because it happened in the actual movie rather than the bloopers

[@hunterolaughlin]

@@summermelody7942 Well, the canon of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command begs to DIFFER.

[@Elipson52008]

@@hunterolaughlin didnt Pixar say that the movie the Buzz in Toy Story was based off of was Lightyear? All 3 Zurg stories contradict themselves.

[@hunterolaughlin]

@@Elipson52008 No, Angus MacLane said the Buzz is based on the in-universe animated spinoff of the film Buzz Lightyear of Star Command.

[@Facebooker413]

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

[@OklahomaBoomer]

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.

[@prcervi]

evelyn would've worked better as a twist villain if the plot wasn't quite so poorly plotted out

[@Facebooker413]

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"

[@andreasmeelie1889]

Wait, the director actually said that he hated Star Command?! That is so pathetically stupid!😡 Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard!😡

[@athlumney]

@@andreasmeelie1889 Pixar as a whole tried to bury Star Command, that's why the show and movie never aired again outside the original run.

[@padawanjon6441]

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

[@L0rdOfThePies]

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!

[@gabrote42]

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

[@Alizudo]

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]

​@@gabrote42 hm, never had that idea with omori. Makes sense now that I think about it though

[@gabrote42]

@@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.

[@15stargamer98]

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.

[@lando-z4534]

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. 😂

[@edenwayne8407]

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.

[@DracNeedsChai]

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?

[@matityaloran9157]

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.

[@phousefilms]

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 honestly saw it as simply a Star Wars joke and not something to be taken as canon. But whatevs I guess.

[@phousefilms]

@@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...

[@matityaloran9157]

@@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.

[@eyedalehim]

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.

[@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375]

Old Pixar was so damn good they were making great movie after great movie, now I feel like they hit the fam mate

[@automatedshowman2897]

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...

[@kevincass9917]

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!

[@happy-ld8vd]

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

[@flickcentergaming680]

That's fucking brilliant. Probably would've been my favorite movie.

[@onEmEmbErstudios]

"I don't want to survive, I want to live" Damn, captain! That's deep!

[@phousefilms]

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.

[@valbroderick8156]

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.

[@eduardogomez4275]

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.

[@riotkitty]

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 😅

[@joshuaW5621]

Not at all.

[@GaspardGourgaud]

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...

[@gabutman6144]

Cars 2 is a fun movie but it should have been a spinoff rather than direct sequel

[@riotkitty]

@@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.

[@lasercraft32]

Bill Cipher's line "It's funny how dumb you are" perfectly sums up Cars 2.

[@TTVWHIFFAL]

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

[@carolingio1152]

John Silver shouldn't count as a villain but rather as a temporary antagonist.

[@JustinZarian]

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.

[@tedioussugar384]

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.

[@raymaikeru]

@@tedioussugar384As a wise teacher once told me: "One cannot experience Joy without having an encounter with Sadness."

[@roonkolos]

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

[@viperblitz11]

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.

[@Shadowkey392]

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!"

[@Sky-Queen]

The amount of analysis you can fit into so little time is absolutely incredible. Great video!

[@DanielGarcia-od1bs]

Coco made me feel bad for Hector that he was robbed which makes that more sad coco made me cry

[@pcdeltalink036]

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.

[@eliasochoa2222]

The script sounds like me tryna fit 2000 words on an essay in highschool 💀

[@nicolascangele5548]

Stinky Pete never had an owner like Lotso

[@R0SE727]

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.

[@rubyrangitsch5248]

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.

[@Raptor_Ren]

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.

[@e2b265]

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.

[@stellamariefanboy.6768]

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.

[@funnyvideoguy3216]

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

[@whippilicious8117]

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.

[@Alexia-s4h]

Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.

[@OscarOSullivan]

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.

[@ethanbeifong]

A lot of people misinterpret Evelyn Deavor's reasoning of why she hates supers to being that she was a "logical thinker." But, you have to understand the thing about Evelyn is more of, to her, since a super never came to save their father, she believed that the supers couldn't be trusted. After the lawsuit that Mr Incredible faced, countless other supers were forced to go into hiding. I believe that she doubted that supers weren't to be trusted. Her father dying was the final piece that made her truly deny supers. And, yes, Mr Deavor could've just hid with his wife, but you have to understand that Mr Deavor didn't believe that supers weren't to be trusted. That's why he tried to call the supers. Evelyn pushes the blame of supers not saving their father on the supers. And, to be fair, literally every hero in DC or Marvel has had civilians hate them even though they're the good guys. There's always gonna be civilians who are gonna be caught in the collateral damage. Or, people who spread lies about the hero. Prime example, J. Jonah Jameson from Spider-Man. In a comic where Jameson was interviewing Spider-Man, he was attacked by a masked man. And, then he saw Spider-Man as an entertainer, but when Spider-Man became a superhero, Jameson hated that because he believes that anyone who wears a mask to be a coward. So, in comparison to Evelyn Deavor, she hates supers because a super never saved their father. After her father died, she probably went back to the news about the supers being forced to live as their secret identity and then she finally connected that that was why they were forced into hiding in the first place. She helped her brother because she wasn't actually helping him. Let me explain. Winston Deavor wanted to make supers legal again, Evelyn, who hates supers, wants them to stay illegal. How does she do it? Make supers appear villainous to the public. So, without causing suspicion, she helps him with designing technology to help supers become legal while simultaneously developing the Screenslaver technology, and villain to take suspicions off of her so that Elastigirl goes on a wild goose chase while she has operating room to put the final pieces together. But, Elastigirl figures it out too soon. Which is why she looked shocked and panicked when she saw that the feed from Elastigirl's suit cam was connected to that TV. And, that causes Evelyn to push the plan out earlier than she wanted. Which is why the goggles weren't perfected. That means that Evelyn may have been making new masks for the supers. Hence why she brushed off Winston's comment about the goggles by saying that it's a new mask that she was developing. So, that's just my take on it.

[@ethanbeifong]

I forgot to mention that yes, Evelyn could've just not helped Winston, but even if she did, there could've been someone else who could design all the tech for Winston's plan to legalize supers. People don't seem to understand that many other people are just as tech savvy as Evelyn. I mean, take Syndrome. He created a robot that could defeat ANY super. Not to mention all of his gadgetry, rocket boots, an entire complex full of rail cars, security doors, and everything else. Also, Edna Mode. She has a bunch of security measures. Plus, she literally created all the supers' suits. Those are just a few examples. But, if Evelyn didn't "help" Winston, he could actually do it. Which he almost does in the movie with Evelyn. So, she had to do something to make sure that they stay illegal.

[@BunnyJolf]

Mater does get a bit of an excuse as the dude is infact, a good detective

[@alexcat6685]

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.

[@hunterolaughlin]

Dr. Evil: “How about NO.”

[@GreenDude_Gaming]

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.

[@Techmaster7032Official]

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.

[@davidchism6081]

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.

[@owencoles2798]

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_godbodor7026]

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.

[@damonlam9145]

A bit off topic, but I found it funny that before Elemental was released some people assumed clod would be a twist villain in the film and then the film came out and he only had a couple of scenes. Though it would be interesting if they made clod slowly turn into an antagonist during the course of story if they choose to continue it.

[@ThePastAnalysis]

How would Clod be an anatagonist? I think Elemental managed to be masterfully compact, well paced, and well structured despite the two plots it was juggling. I think if they added Clod as a villain he'd be tacked on or other moments would need to be cut.

[@damonlam9145]

@@ThePastAnalysis I never said he had to be an antagonist in this film I said it would be interesting if Clod slowly becomes a villain as the story continues like tiny seeds planted over the course of multiple films (though I doubt it would happen due to the chance of a sequel being slim).

[@ThePastAnalysis]

@@damonlam9145 Ah, gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I do think the chances of sequel are slim sadly. It's a shame. This is such an interesting world Pixar made.

[@damonlam9145]

@@ThePastAnalysis No worries, and let's not forget Elemental is only out for over a week plus there's merchandise and streaming so I wouldn't consider Elemental a flop just yet.

[@ThePastAnalysis]

@@damonlam9145 Agreed! I'm really hoping that it can at least hit 200 million in Box Office revenue. It's a shame so many people are waiting for streaming due to the marketing. I am really hoping the merchandise and streaming shows how great Elemental is. ☺

[@bradleyc.5425]

Honestly, I really liked the twist in Lightyear

[@hanniphone__]

GOOB was one of the best villain twist, he wasnt rlly menacing but the twist was good because of the character history

[@Emily-h1t6t]

Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.

[@jstar3382]

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.

[@wileycoyote7481]

Honestly, Evelyn could have worked if she was targeting Non-Supers, hypnotizing the super heroes to destroy the non-supers for making heroes go underground, which indirectly led to her Father's death- that would of made more sense than her just blaming the supers-

[@savannahkluesner9081]

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.

[@bloodysimile4893]

Auto isn't a twist villain like Hal 9000. Both are ai built to serve mission, at any cost, without thinking out side such rule. A cold warning of humanity surrendering themselves and giving up responsibilities.

[@theflashgameguy3015]

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.

[@tristarnova3454]

Twist villains are kinda hard to get right, they need intent, good motives, presence, and the actual evil factor to make them at least good, and plus the twist must be timed well, too late, and the twist doesn’t have that impact, and plus you can’t develop it that well, too early, the impact isn’t really there, and must come with small hints, making it too obvious, means the twist will be expected, not obvious, the twist villian will feel unintentional.

[@MegaFafnir]

Waternoose's motivation is believable and makes sense: he didn't want to see the end of the company he and his family had achieved so much with, and had no idea that there was a better, more humane way to combat the energy crisis than scream power. I also always liked how, even after revealing his true agenda and banishing Sulley and Mike to stop them telling anyone, Waternoose still showed signs of regret over it. He and Sulley had a genuine friendship, and he was angered when Randall smugly said Sulley "got what he deserved". So yeah, while he definitely deserved to be arrested for what he ended up doing, Waternoose is not the most evil baddie around, and didn't need to be to work as a character.

[@Shadowkey392]

I would just like to point out that Lightyear has no business being here, because Old Buzz/Zerg is not a twist villain. Also let's agree too disagree about The Incredibles 2. Evelyn Deavour may not have been a good villain, but that movie, as a whole, was GREAT!

[@monorayjak4377]

Ok, a few thoughts. First, just to clarify, I found this channel by random chance (and honestly... am not really going to stick around). Second... it kind of felt like the entire first half of the video was just yelling at things with little substance given for the reason. And with those two out of the way (and keeping in mind I haven't seen every movie on this, namely Incredibles 2 and Lightyear), I want to talk about some points you made. Starting with the bit I have the least bit of information on but the largest opinion on, I completely disagree that a superhero movie has to have a traditional supervillain. Superhero movies are (usually) looking at exceptional people in some regard. Exceptional people come in all varieties. From that alone it should be clear that not all exceptional people will be defined by that exceptionality. It is a piece of their character, but it doesn't have to be the core component of them. I think Hal from Megamind (different studio, I know, but just what I came up with from the top of my head) isn't a villain because he is given exceptional powers. He's a villain because of his worldview and how he thinks relationships work. The exceptional quality is a part of him, but it isn't what makes him the villain. In addition to this, I do believe that characters seemingly advocating for something they despise is fine, I mean, I can't believe I'm saying this, but take Axelrod from Cars 2. He had power from essentially a monopoly on alternative fuels. He worked publicly towards the goal of alternative fuels, but in reality was just using it as a means of making targets he wanted dead easier to kill (highly explosive under the right conditions (Beam gun thing)), he used what he had available to him, he made a seemingly good alternative fuel but kept some of the less desirable traits hidden so they could be exploited, while also keeping himself from using the same fuel, meaning no one could use his own plans against him. I know this isn't a perfectly written argument and that its messy and probably a bit all over the place with nonsense, but I hope you can see my major point that villains do not have to fit cookie cutter roles to be good. Second, minor nitpick, and more just something I noticed while watching that made me wonder... is English your first language? Because the video had a decent amount of minor errors (that I could see being made by someone who wither forgot to check over the script once or twice or someone who is speaking a non-native language). Anyways, this comment got too long.

[@herostar8974]

Ernesto - Ambitious Charles - Obsessive Waternoose - Desperate

[@jstar3382]

Charles Muntz wasn't really a great as a twist villain, but a great use the "never meet your heroes" trope. He wasn't even evil originally, likely just driven completely insane by his long, long journey. He's a monster, but a very human one

[@olleselin]

Wow, you clearly know the entire Buzz Lightyear lore even more than Angus MacLane ever could!

[@potatoheadpokemario1931]

Screen Slaver would have made more sense as Winston because he can make a threat to justify the need for heroes

[@starlette7820]

Villains arent always necessary for a story to be good, and I think some of their more recent movies are proof of that. Conflict and drama that comes from the main characters and the people they care about, that is an issue that they need to grow and learn from and solve together can be just as engaging.

[@ickyvicky6882]

I honestly like Hans as a twist villain. I feel he wasn’t overly villainous,but rather he was fully revealed. The movie has very subtle hints that you wouldn’t even realize until rewatching. Like the scene where he tries to look like he’s saving else by moving the arrow that’s shot up, when he is shown before looking up at it to suggest he calculated to look like the hero while actively trying to kill her

[@nickolassussybaka437]

Twist villain is not a bad idea they just have to make some sense of why there the way they are

[@NoxAtlas]

I feel like Pixar just does more work with twist villain. Disney just adds them as a shock factor and doesnt do the build-up to make the twist villain work. Pixar's twist villains are very clear about their goals, they are flawed and have questionable methods. But because the protagonist thinks they're good guys, we're tempted to think the same. We can see why the protagonist would think the twist villain is on their side and trust them. The villain is sympathetic or charming enough to fool people and they often have similar goals as the protagonist but choose the wrong methods. But if we watch the movie again disconnected from the protagonist, we clearly see that the signs were always there. We see their manipulative, calculating nature, their arrogance, etc. But we deliberately ignored the red flags before because the protagonist didn't.

[@jazziethunderheart718]

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.

[@babysleepysheepyrainbow]

I think when it comes to twist villains it can't just be for shock value. If it's just for shock value the audience says "what!? That doesn't make sense. A good twist villain makes the audience go "what!? That makes total sense!"

[@starlette7820]

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.

[@suntzu4607]

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.

[@MrBallerinakaka]

Unlike Disney Twist Villians Who Don't Work Anymore. Props To Pixar For Giving Well Written Pixar Twist Villians!

[@AH-is5yg]

Ernesto work because there was no signs of him being a villain and we didn't know how far he would go to achieve his fame. The reason he manage to get away with it during his time in the living because Hector's family banned music. Ironically, Coco had letters from her father that contain Hector's songs, had the family didn't banned music, they would have notice Ernesto's songs were like Hector's letters. They would have exposed Ernesto while he was alive and also learn the dark truth what Ernesto did to Hector. He would have been caught a long time ago. Also, Charles Muntz's name was tarnish unfairly and he tried to find the bird to restore his good name. He created amazing inventions and he trained dogs to be servants, pilots and so on making him the best dog trainer. He would have gone back home and showed the world his amazing skills and inventions instead of the finding the bird. He would have been remembered as a great inventor and greatest dog trainer that would have inspired generations. His good name would have been restore. His obsession was his fatal flaw. His paranoia also prevented him from asking for help to find a bird and get pictures of him and this would have vindicate him. He just wanted the bird to himself and be proven right sadly.

[@Storm_Westfield]

I’ll take Pixar villains over Disney villains all day

[@AlexanderFaker]

Old Disney bodies them tho, Hades, Frollo from Notre Dame or Gaston. Those are all peak they just can’t make a solid twist villian

[@Storm_Westfield]

@@AlexanderFakertrue

[@eliottdeletraz97]

I feel like Pixar and plot twists are in love for a long time. I mean, is there a movie where a character is a villain to the end or it's just vilains wearing a mask and revealing themselves at the 2/3 of the movie ?

[@facusmendoza1061]

So far Pixar villains are more amazing just look at Ernesto and Charles both Carl and Miguel felt betrayed when they find out the truth

[@diggyrobinson5859]

The best kind of twist villain is one that add on to an existing antagonist

[@sebasmana5798]

Remember Emperor Zorgg is supposedly his father. You can see Buzz and him playing ball in the bloopers of Toy Story 2.

[@ThePastAnalysis]

So.. I hard disagree that Muntz from Up is a good twist villain. He's such an underwhelming tacked on villain. He becomes an antagonist for the most underwhelming reason; that Russle befriends the bird he's after and he assumes Carl and Russle are after the bird. Why does anyone care about this bird? Its completely ancillary to the reason Carl went to Paradise Falls in the first place.

[@phousefilms]

I guessed he would be the bad guy because the trailers showed him, so I didn't really feel it was a twist at all. Not the worst villain, thought his reason for going crazy after spending years chasing Kevin and losing lots of dogs in the stone maze she lived in would slowly drive anyone mad. However, his existence didn't hurt the film(hell, Dug wouldn't even be in it if we didn't have Muntz).

[@FarahA27]

And if Russell had never befriended the bird, Muntz wouldn’t turn against Carl and the boy.

[@FarahA27]

Generally, the Pixar twist villains (except the one from Incredibles 2) work well because the people who founded Pixar know what it feels like to be betrayed by someone. When Jeffery Katzenberg came to visit them, John Lasseter showed him the movie that they were working on at that time which was A Bug's Life. Katzenberg left Disney because of issues with Michael Eisner and formed DreamWorks. When Lasseter and other guys at Pixar heard that Dreamworks' first movie (or one of the first movies) was Antz, they suspected that Katzenberg stole their idea or ripped them off. They confronted Katzenburg but he claimed that he got the idea of Antz from one of his executives instead. That was the end of Lasseter's friendship with Katzenberg.

[@nerdyfoxes8000]

Reminder for those who haven't watched Toy Story 2. Zurg is Buzz's father.

[@insertscreechingskeletonhe2792]

I just thought Auto enjoyed serving humanity or at least found it amusing how he was in full control (well, mostly control) over everything, even humanity's decisions and wanted to keep the status quo going.

[@goldenguy7470]

"Why Pixar twist villans worked... and 2010 Disney twist villans didn't work"

[@roguetheoutlander8800]

I hoped that Zerg gonna be Buzz's father in that movie

[@lemagicbaguette1917]

I will partially defend Evelyn's villainy. She is portrayed in the shadows in quite a few scenes, and her plan has some semblance of sense. The way I interpret it, she fought tooth and nail to bring supers back and actively help, and for them to immediately turn on her and everyone else, i.e. overtaking a yacht, would ensure that supers will become illegal, but forevermore due to the bitterness of betrayal. Her motivations were kinda dumb, and her twist should have been relegated to only the heroes with us in the know. A well-motivated manipulative supervillain is always a joy to watch. Come to think of it, one of the big problems with twist villains is that they try to trick the audience. It can work, but this takes immense work and planning. Having a villain be a twist to the cast and movie alone, such as with Hal, introduces dramatic irony in the extreme. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[@JewelandKaterule]

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)_/¯

[@mistingwolf]

The instant Disney got their grubby little mouse paws on Pixar, Pixar was doomed.

[@ZackagonXM]

I think Screenslaver being a robot Syndrome experiment would have been cool.

[@erika-paigehutch3930]

My friends and I were talking about plot twists the other day and to quote my friend "It doesn't matter how insane it is, if it makes no sense after you've seen it once" and i agree, movies aren't typically made only to be watched once, after the first time you know what the twist is so if its like Hans and comes out of nowhere, the first time it's shocking but every other time its dumb because you already know it's coming but there's nothing building it up to it. Ernesto is done well because all the pieces are there so once you've watched it once it's fun to pick up on the pieces instead of being confused

[@complex2live]

Lightyear's Twist is literally just Lego Movie 2's Twist

[@Felix-q7m1y]

She borrowed the book from him many years ago and hasn't yet returned it.

[@cliffjumper416]

I loved Lightyear, i had no problem with it and i watched all of the Toy Story movies. If you agree with me, let me know because i want to know others who enjoyed it just as me

[@Veelofar]

I think the key to. Good twist is that it has to be something someone paying attention may think is the case before it gets there. The surprise is only half of a twist, and the twist of “Surprise, that thing you were thinking was true” is still a twist. Stories today are determined to make sure you can’t guess the twist, and in so being determined make their twists fall flat.

[@michaelbrent1536]

Syndrome,Ernisto, Stinky Pete,loso the bear, Randall, Water news,Auto and Charle Mutt Are great Plot twist villains! Other None-Disney villains like Thrax,Hexxus,Holli Would,Bowser,Pitch Black,Drago,Ganondorf,Steele,Hade(Kid icarus Uprising),Zanza(Xenoblade Chronicles),Malos(Xenoblade 2),Medusa(Kid icarus Uprising),Frieza(DBZ),Cell(DBZ),FireLord Ozai(Avatar The Last Airbender),Azula(Avatar The Last Airbender),Marik(Yu-Gi-Oh),DarkSied(SuperMan ) and Joker(Dc ) are my favorites!

[@angelwatcher374]

They made Evelyn Deavor too obvious as a villain. Her own name gives her away because it’s Evil Endeavor

[@timothyloayza6789]

The only thing asides how is muntz not so shriveled or decript boned, was why couldnt they take a Picture or video (if only Russell didnt drop the gps phone) or hell find kevins chicks and temporarily bring them to the explorers organization for the proof then return to its natural habitat.

[@GelatinCoffee]

I gotta admit, the first time I watched walle. I thought the bad guy was the cleaning robot 😂😅, because the guy on the TV told the robot never to go back to earth I was like "makes sense, also we seen it's super nasty 😃. What a good robot" Also, I'm watching you. Always watching